Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pennsylvania Route 12

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not promoted - withdrawn by the nominator. –Fredddie™ 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I feel this is one of my better articles as it has a well-researched history with several prose sources and a route description that is not excessively detailed.
Nominated by: Dough4872 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 01:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The history of Pricetown Road is extremely lacking. There are four sentences, all with dates cited by maps. There is a desperate need to start doing local research from libraries around Reading. By 1862, By 1930, By 1940 is not significant, and considering information like this is out there if you try, I'd take a good look on it. Next, we have no contract dates, groundbreakings or anything on the bypass besides start/finish. We have a date of By 1976, this could be eliminated with a newspaper check. Hell, the article needs some more newspapers in my opinion, which should help get this stuff across. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 01:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During this week I will try to do some library research to find these details. Dough4872 02:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've tried searching the Kutztown University Library and the Berks County Public Libraries collections online and nothing relevant is coming up concerning the early history of Pricetown Road. Dough4872 02:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source on Google Books showing Pricetown Road in 1836. Dough4872 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found a better source that discusses Pricetown Road in the 17th century, along with the original use of the road. Dough4872 03:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request withdrawal of this nomination. Dough4872 04:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not promote - stale. --Rschen7754 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado State Highway 74

[edit]
Toolbox

Colorado State Highway 74 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: After my first successful GAN, I almost completely rewrote this article. I intend to someday (if ever) bring this article to FAC.
Nominated by: — PCB 07:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 23:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Imzadi1979

[edit]

I have several issues that need to be resolved before this article can be promoted, especially if anyone intends to take this to WP:FAC at some point.

  • Basics
    • Taking care of the basics first, the redirects and stuff are good. The photos are all appropriately licensed.
    • You might want to update some of the links since they're coming up as redirects on the websites. That could mean that CDOT has reorganized their site.
    • Look at the comments the Peer Reviewer tool gives you; some of them are duplicated below, but you might want to look at what it says about redundancies in the prose.
    • I think the ALT text needs work to comply with current guidelines. What is the purpose of including the image? That's the question the ALT text needs to answer, not "what does the image look like?"
    • The references are all to reliable sources, so the article is good on that account. (I have comments below on formatting issues, but that's secondary.)
  • Lead—concerning the prose in the lead, I have the following issues:
    • "northwest-southeast" en dash (–) here please.
    • What is a "wider segment"? I think you meant that roadway is wider than other sections.
    • "The route, which is on the outskirts of Denver, passses through several of Denver's mountain parks, including Bergen Park, Dedisse Park and Red Rocks Park." How about: "The route, which is on the outskirts of Denver, passes through several of the city's/area's mountain parks, including Bergen, Dedisse and Red Rocks parks." (Pick either "city's" or "area's" as appropriate. If the parks aren't owned by or in the city, use area.) You have repetition issues in the prose that inhibit flow here.
    • Is the roadway just eligible for the NRHP, or is it listed on the NRHP? According to the body of the article, it's listed.
    • "with a 4–6 lane roadway," should be "with a four- to six-lane roadway," since round numbers under 10 should be spelled out, and the numbers are part of a compound adjective.
    • "Other sites along Bear Creek, such as a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp in Red Rocks Park, make the Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive, as the section between Idledale and Morrison is called, have given the route a listing on the National Register of Historic Places." A recent change to the article is problematic. You have two verbs in the sentence, which when you drop some details reads as "Other sites along Bear Creek ... make the Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive ... have given the route a listing on the National Register of Historic Places."
      • Reworded.
    • "Newer improvements to the road include widening Evergreen Parkway segment to four lanes and constructing an interchange with the I-70." I think the the needs to be in front of the Evergreen Parkway and not in front of I-70.
  • Infobox
    • Map notes?
    • The map_alt needs to be changed; this is where you'd mention what the map is trying to tell the reader in case they can't see it. ALT text shouldn't duplicate the caption because a screen reader will list both the ALT and the caption.
      • I tried my best to use alt text, but it might not be the highest quality.
    • Why isn't any history listed in the infobox, a designation date for instance?
    • Why isn't the county listed in |counties= so that the location shows in the box?
    • De-link the second El Rancho. It's overlinking, and with that as a redlink, it stands out all the more.
  • Route description
    • Can you start the first sentence of the first paragraph with SH 74. I'm lost about what you're trying to say from the get-go here. The opening of the section doesn't seem to have any connection to SH 74, which is the subject of the article, isn't it?
    • Hmm... US 40's first mention in the text doesn't have a link, nor the full name. Remember, not all of our readers know that US 40=U.S. Route 40/U.S. Highway 40.
    • You can clean up how the first set of speed limits reads by combining the templates together: "from 40 miles per hour (64 km/h) to {{convert|50|mph}" becomes "from 40 to 50 miles per hour (64 to 80 km/h)" by using {{convert|40|to|50|mph}}.
    • On the topic of speed limits, I think it's safe to override the template to abbreviate the units using |abbr=on. You might do that on the second and subsequent mentions, or all of them.
    • Since more than one county road is mentioned, why not abbreviate it after the first mention and use "(CR 32)" after the first one.
    • "the east side of the parkway becomes Buchanan Park, where several ponds are located." The parkway becomes the park? I think you mean that after that point, the road follows the edge of the park.
    • "Entering Dedisse Park, Evergreen Parkway enters the town of Evergreen, passing by Evergreen Lake along the Bear Creek." Another badly constructed, and potentially confusing sentence. Also, you have repetition of the word/name "Evergreen", so it would be nice to break that up as much as possible. As an example, Iron River, Michigan, is on the Iron River, so I'll use constructions like "city of the same name" or "namesake waterway" in my writing to avoid duplication.
    • "SH 74 then curves eastward and northward as it winds out of town and enters a mountainous area, now known as Bear Creek Road." The mountainous area is known as as Bear Creek Road?
    • "In Kittredge, the route meets CR 120, Myers Gulch Road, .... " Ok you've used the abbreviation, but since the convention was introduced in the preceding paragraph, this would confuse a reader not familiar with roads. Second, but we normally put road names like "Myers Gulch Road" in parenthesis in cases like this.
    • "which is a measure of traffic volume for any average day of the year." Look at how the same sentence in U.S. Route 131 got reworded at its FAC. While you've copied some of my style here, it might help to copy a better version.
    • "In 2009, CDOT calculated that as few as 3,200 vehicles used SH 74 daily near Idledale, and as many as 23,000 vehicles used SH 74 near the interchange with I-70 as well in Evergreen." I hope that you've used nonbreaking spaces ( ) between the numbers and the units ("vehicles" in this case) and the "SH" and the "74". Second, but you've repeated the designation when a substitute like "the highway" would be better.
    • "No part of the route is listed on the National Highway System, a system of roads that are important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility.[15][5]" you should move the NHS map citation to fall after the link to the NHS article. Second, you need a citation for the explanation since you're copying verbatim wording from a public domain source. See U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, et al, for the citation for the explanation. (Since it's PD text, and short, you don't need quotation marks, as discussed in US 2's ACR.) Last, but your footnotes are out of numerical order, but really, the NHS map can be used alone without a second citation. (This isn't controversial information, and it isn't something that requires two citations like the before-and-after map citation technique we use in a lot of history sections.)
    • "meeting an intersection US 40 (Swede Gulch Road)." you're missing a with in front of US 40.
    • " County Road 23 (CR 23), known as Kerr Gulch Road." would be better as " County Road 23 (CR 23, Kerr Gulch Road)." You have the parenthetical there, so why have a comma-based appositive as well?
    • "which heads southwest" southwestward or southwesterly would be better. I would also alternate between the -ward and -ly forms for variety.
    • "before traveling along the west side of Buchanan Park, where several ponds are located." That just reads awkwardly to me. Since the ponds are kind of less than important, I'd just drop the mention of them.
    • "The west side of SH 74 becomes Elk Meadow Open Space Park," again,becomes isn't the best verb choice here. "The west side of SH 74 follows Elk Meadow Open Space Park," is better.
    • "milepost five." Does CDOT post mileposts along this roadway? If not, you shouldn't mention them. I did mention them in the M-185 article, but the MISPC does erect milepost signs.
    • "Here, it intersects CR 74, ..." what's the it here? How about "the roadway" or "the highway" instead if you mean SH 84, or "the creek" if you mean Bear Creek.
    • " eastward and northward" can be converted to "east- and northward" to eliminate the repetition if desired.
    • "which is a measure the average daily traffic volume on a particular road." it's a measure of the average, right?
  • History
    • Check to make sure there aren't spaces between punctuation and the footnotes. FN 18 at the end of the third sentence has one. There's also one between FN 24 and 25 further down the section.
    • "SH 74 passes through many of Denver's mountain parks, including Bergen Park and Dedisse Park." Two things, but you haven't established at this point that the roadway is SH 74 at this stage of the history. Second, you can reword the ending as "Bergen and Dedisse parks" to remove the duplicate word.
      • I was trying to refer to the point that it currently passes through the mountain parks. Should the transition be removed? — PCB 04:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would drop the SH 74 mention in favor of a generic "roadway" or "highway" reference, but you still have the issue of the repetition at the end of the sentence. Maybe you should call it the Bear Creek Scenic Mountain Drive instead of SH 74, in light of the fact that the roadway carried the SH 25 designation at a later point before it was SH 74.
    • "Bear Creek, along which the roadway runs along, was stocked with trout.[23]" Why is this even relevant to SH 74's history?
    • "State Highway 27, as the Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive was designated until 1923, when the number was switched to 74, ...." A couple issues. First, why isn't SH 27 abbreviated? Second, you're jumping ahead of yourself here by talking about the redesignation in 1923. Just use "SH 27, as the Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive was known at the time, ...."
    • "... known as the Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[2][28][29]" Why three citations? FAC reviewers tend to look on things with suspicion if the sentence has this many citations tacked on the end, unless it's the "before-and-after" map citation technique we use from time to time. Also, this contradicts what you wrote in the lead, as I noted above.
    • "The dam, finished three years after the flood, created Evergreen Lake, may have contributed to increases in tourism in the nearby city with the same name.[23] The bit about the tourism increases isn't really relevant to the article. This whole paragraph could be condensed just a little so that it focuses on the flooding, its impact to the roadway, and the solution.
    • "From 1923 through the early 1930s, SH 74's designation was from Echo Lake at what is now an intersection between SH 103 and SH 5 east along Squaw Pass Road to Bergen Park." You could recast this slightly to eliminate the possessive, since we're talking about "the SH 74 designation" and what roads it followed.
    • Can you find out when the roadway was designated SH 27, and when it was redesignated SH 74? That transition from BCSMD to SH&nbs;74 to SH 74 needs to be clarified.
    • "In one of the parks, Red Rocks Park ..." You're repeating "park", can you change the first word to something else, or just drop it to "In Red Rocks Park, ..."
    • When was the road and camp added to the NRHP?
    • "current ending point in Morrison." The word terminus is better than "ending point", since in a sense, these roads don't have a set beginning and ending per se.
  • Major intersections
    • How about converting the table to templates?
    • How about listing the CRs the are mentioned in the prose?
    • How about adding I-70/US 40's exit number instead of just "interchange"?
  • See also—this would be a good section to add with portal links.
    • Since the link that you added should actually redirect into this article, you should switch {{portal box}} for {{portal-inline}}.
  • References
    • You're missing publishers on all of the CDOT sources because you've elected to use CDOT as the author. I would recommend using "Staff" for the author and moving CDOT to the publisher field. If you can find a specific office, division, region, etc., that created the source, use that as the author.
    • It's also a good idea to include what the section name of the CDOT website as the "work" for an online source. You can also use {{cite report}} for reports instead of {{cite web}}.
    • Can you supply ISBNs (books), ISSNs (journals/magazines), or OCLCs (older books) for all possible sources? http://www.worldcat.org is helpful for getting these numbers.
    • It's always a good idea to supply the cartography source for a map, even if it's just CDOT (it's ok to abbreviate if the publisher is spelled out and they're duplicating each other.)
    • The shortened footnotes to the Highways to the Sky work should have periods after the page number(s).
    • Make sure all of your date formats are consistent.
    • PDF is an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format" and it should be in all caps, not "pdf".
    • FN 15 needs an en dash (–) in "Denver–Aurora"
    • FN 19 should be pp. 44–47, not pp. 44–7.
    • FN 21 needs a PDF indication.
    • FN 22 needs an en dash (–) in "March–April".
    • FN 26 needs a publication location and publisher name.
    • Several foonotes are using the month(s) of publication as the issue. The |issue= field is for an issue number. Please move them to the |month= field so they are added to the date correctly. If it's a specific day's issue, use |date= with the full date properly formatted.
    • FN 35: are you sure that's the publication name?
    • FN 39 needs a page number.
    • All of the RMN articles need the paper's location added since the paper name doesn't contain the city.
    • Now, you have a "Works cited" section with only one work. How about using shortened footnotes with all of the other book sources, and moving the full citations here for consistency?
    • CDOT isn't the author for Highways to the Sky; Associated Cultural Resource Experts is. Double check with worldcat.org, but CDOT should be the publisher only since they didn't write it. Fill out the citation like a book with location, publisher, etc.
    • In general, make sure as much information about the source is given, and that it's given consistently.
    • Do the CDOT maps for Jefferson County and Morrison have publication dates? Can you try to find dates for all of the other CDOT reports like footnotes 1, 3, 4, 5, etc.
    • I still recommend that the other books sources have their footnotes shortened and the full citations moved to the Works cited section. Footnotes 16, 23 and 25 are all books, right?
  • External links—Can you improve the way this is formatted, say "SH at at <website name>"?
  • Images—I mentioned the issue with ALT text in relation to the missing caption for the map already, but there are issues with the photos.
    • First, why are the two images for the RD run up at the top of the section? They should be moved to roughly correspond to the text. In other words, when the RD discussions the area that an image is showing, put the photo near that bunch of text so the relationship is clear.
    • Second, why are you overriding the default thumbnail sizes, especially with a size that's smaller than the default? There's no need to force them smaller in this context.
    • The caption should be used to connect to the text and subject of the article a bit more. Specifically, the photo of the house should focus on the lake and the park in the caption, not the house.

Last thing, but you might want to add this to the "Jefferson County, Colorado" category (or a "Transportation in Jefferson County, Colorado" category if it exists). Double check the NRHP status, and maybe add it to a NRHP category as well.

The article has promise, but it needs a copy edit and consistency check before it can be promoted to A-Class or even be nominated at FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very thorough review. I will try to address these issues as soon as possible. — PCB 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content issues
    • I would merge Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive into this article, since that roadway is just a segment of SH 74. At the least, make sure that the NRHP information is added to this article before you redirect that title here.
    • You've mentioned that there is a National Scenic Byway that follows this highway. It is the Lariat Loop Scenic & Historic Byway, and it needs to be mentioned in this article. There are resources at:

      Staff. "Lariat Loop Scenic & Historic Byway". America's Byways. Federal Highway Administration.
      Staff. "Lariat Loop National Scenic Byway: Forty Miles of Western Adventure". Lariat Loop Heritage Alliance.

      that would be of use. I would avail yourself of that page, and the subpages there, and get as much of that information added as you can.
  • I was aware of both issues and plan to get to them as soon as I have time. — PCB 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dough4872

[edit]
Resolved issues from Dough4872 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the infobox you list the mileage as 18.110 and in the lead as 18.11. It it possible to be consistent and use three decimal places for the mileage in the lead also?
  2. In the sentence "The section of the route north of the town of Evergreen is known as Evergreen Parkway and is a wider segment than that east of Evergreen.", it is possible to mention how wide the section north of Evergreen is?
  3. It would sound better to start the route description with a sentence saying "SH 74 begins at an interchange with I-70."
  4. More wikilinks are needed in the route description.
  5. "From I-70, Evergreen Parkway, as the route is named, heads southeast through El Rancho, meeting an intersection with Swede Gulch Road, numbered as US 40. ", too many commas, needs to be reworded. Also, rephrase the last part to say "US 40, which is named Swede Gulch Road."
  6. Do not use "then" in every sentence of route description.
  7. Is it really necessary to mention speed limits in the route description?
  8. "Kerr Gulch Road, designated as County Road 23", maybe try "County Road 23 (Kerr Gulch Road)."
  9. Combine the sentences "Evergreen Parkway then turns westward and passes Fillius Park to the north in the community of Hidden Valley. The terrain in the region is mountainous."
  10. Change "southerly" to "to the south."
  11. The sentence "As the route heads south, Elk Meadow Park appears to the west and a residential area appears to the east" sounds awkward.
  12. "Entering Dedisse Park, Evergreen Parkway enters the town of Evergreen, passing by Evergreen Lake along the Bear Creek.", do not use the verb enter twice.
  13. I don't see how the sentence "The pavement at this point is aged and in a poor condition." has any meaning to the article.
  14. Through the route description, you mention county routes as "County Road x" then suddenly switch to "CR x". For the first instance, use "County Road x (CR x)" and use "CR x" for the rest.
  15. "In Kittredge, the route meets CR 120, Myers Gulch Road, which heads southeast toward Indian Hills.", Myers Gulch Road should be in parentheses.
  16. The sentence "Where the speed limit is raised to 35 miles per hour (56 km/h), the route again meets Kerr Gulch Road, which bypasses the large curve which SH 74 took." sounds awkward.
  17. You use the verb enter a lot in the route description. Try to vary the wording a bit.
  18. The sentence "From here, SH 8 serves as the continuation of the road as Morrison Road toward Denver." needs better wording.
  19. "toll roads became no longer common", try using were instead of became.
  20. "and the path became one maintained by Jefferson County, used primarily to access mining camps", remove "one".
  21. "State Highway 27, as the Bear Creek Canyon Scenic Mountain Drive was designated until 1923, when the number was switched to 74, ran past the Denver Motor Club in Idledale in addition to newly purchased parks.", abbreviate State Highway and add SH in front of 74. Also cut down on use of commas.
  22. Overall, there are too many sentences with several commas. These need to be reworded.
  23. The sentence "The dam, finished three years after the flood, created Evergreen Lake, may have contributed to increases in tourism in the nearby city with the same name." sounds awkward.
  24. "By then, the eastern terminus of the route had been cut back to its original and current ending point in Morrison.", what designation replaced that portion of SH 74?
  25. I would suggest adding portal links to P:USRD and Portal:Colorado in a see also section. Dough4872 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a new concern. In the route description, you have two consecutive sentences beginning with "After intersecting." Can you change one of them? Dough4872 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article looks good now. Dough4872 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments from Fredddie

    [edit]

    As usual, these comments read in order. I have only glanced over some of the other comments above. If they overlap, I apologize. –Fredddie™ 04:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox and lead
    1. I'm worried about being over-precise in the article's prose. I would round 18.110 miles down to 18.
      • Dough made me do that, but whatever. Changed to 18. — PCB 05:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good. It's best to not be absolutely precise in the article's prose; and exactly the reason why I use fractions in articles. We have junction lists for precision's sake. –Fredddie™
    2. I would say where I-70 and SH-8 meet SH-74.
    3. I don't think rough curve is a very good descriptor of the route. U-, C-, or even J-shaped would be much better descriptions. You should probably change the alt text of the map to match.
    4. "The section of the route north of the town of Evergreen is known as Evergreen Parkway and is a segment with a wider roadway than that east of Evergreen." This should be two sentences.
    5. You don't need to say "the Bear Creek", "Bear Creek" will do fine.
    6. Passes through several of the city's what? Suburbs?
    7. Measures were taken to prevent damage? You should say they were taken to prevent further damage. Otherwise it sounds like the road wasn't damaged, but it was fixed up to prevent future damage.
    8. The descriptions of the old endpoints aren't very descriptive.
    9. Again, you don't need to say "the Evergreen Parkway".
    Route description
    1. "...north side and cross the highway diagonally southwestward." Huh? Think about your audience; some people won't be able to picture this when they read it.
    2. "...southeast through El Rancho..." Don't you mean southwest?
    3. I'm seeing lots of repetition: "After intersecting..." "...the road/route..."
    4. I'm having trouble following along on a map. I recommend having a set of eyes not involved with USRD look over this article. (see WP:PR)
    5. I don't think you talk about Evergreen as much as you should. Maybe it's just me, but the lead seemed to talk up the city, but it's basically a passing mention in the RD.
    6. I don't like the NHS mention in the last paragraph. There seems to have been a belief created that you can't pass FAC without it, and that's just not the case.
    History
    1. "Established in 1909 by Colorado governor Robert W. Speer, the system..." What system? Oops, I should have kept reading; you should revise that sentence anyway.
    2. You should combine instances of {{Convert}} so "7 feet (2.1 m) to 34 feet (10 m) high" becomes "7 to 34 feet (2.1 to 10.4 m) high".
    Major intersections
    1. You should treat US-40 like it's an overlap, since it is.
    2. I would have said "

       I-70 east / US 40 east      " and "


       US 40 west to I-70 west      " since there is no complete access to I-70 from SH-74.
    Images
    1. It could just be me, but none of the pictures seem to be relevant to the aritcle. Only two have the road in it, and it's clear the road is not the subject of those images.

    If the nominator does not attempt to resolve the issues in 14 days, this ACR will be closed due to inactivity. --Rschen7754 10:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Going to leave this open until about mid-March March 12 unless there's issues that are resolved. --Rschen7754 02:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The result was promoted -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    California State Route 57

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    California State Route 57 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: I brought this article from B-class to GA-class, and I think that it stands a good chance of becoming A-class since all of the research has been completed.
    Nominated by: Rschen7754 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 00:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. "The entire route is in the California Freeway and Expressway System[4] (and is a freeway where built).", I don't think parentheses are needed here.
      Done.
    2. The sentence "The interchange, long considered a major bottleneck, was rebuilt in the 1990s and 2000s." should be moved to the history.
      I don't fully agree here - this is being used to add detail to the route description. If it was in the history, we'd have to elaborate on what the construction was. I'd like to leave that to the Orange Crush interchange article. --Rschen7754 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. A few attractions near SR 57 should be added to the route description to give it more flavor. For example, the road passes near Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Honda Center in Anaheim, California State University, Fullerton in Fullerton, Brea Mall in Brea.
      Added those four, plus some missing cities (oops!) --Rschen7754 22:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Also, it might help to add some more details about the physical surroundings. For example, in the suburban areas, does it pass near homes or businesses? What are the hilly areas like?
      I don't really know how useful this is, considering that this is a freeway. --Rschen7754 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. I noticed some overlinking in the history, for example SR 60 is linked twice.
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Has there been any changes to the route since it was completed?
      Yes, the I-210 piece as described at the end of the article.
    7. Reference 8 is a dead link. Dough4872 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah... Thankfully the archive place got, but I know it's not the best thing ever. --Rschen7754 01:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Replied to all your comments. --Rschen7754 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Basics
    • DABs are good.
    • No ALT text, but that's not exactly required at FAC these days... but it is suggested.
    • The ocregister.com link changes subdomain, so you might want to swap out the URL used for the article. Otherwise, the ELs look good.
    • I haven't checked, but I will comment to double check your non-breaking spaces.
    Image review
    • You'll want to ping NE2 (talk · contribs) to get the GIS source information for the map added to its image description page. I'd recommend adding a color key as well for the map to the IDP. The map should have a caption as well.
    • It's my recommendation that at least the SR 57 marker graphic (the "shield") have its IDP changed to clarify that SPUI doesn't own the graphic, since he slavishly reproduced the work of Caltrans, and clarify that the marker is PD from them. (This is an issue project wide where people are claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that they created the work, when they only created the copy that's residing on the servers and never had any ownership interest in the underlying graphics.)
    • File:57-Lambert_on_ramp.jpg needs its copyright status clarified. Since the photo is only the sign, we need to know that the sign isn't under copyright. Given the age, it's PD unless there's a copyright notice attached to it because signs pre-1978 in the US are PD without a positive notice. (Something similar came up at the Brockway Mountain Drive FAC image review.)
    • The caption on the nighttime photo should have SR 90 abbreviated for consistency with the body of the article.
    Infobox
    • is it possible to narrow down the SR 60 measurement, and maybe just add it to the total if isn't already. The length notes are slightly confusing to me, and since CA uses postmiles, I can't exactly clarify the situation using the exit list.
    • See above for the comments on the map.
    • I have some ideas on cleaning up the system "browselinks" section of the infobox, but that doesn't impact the status of this article. We can discuss that at WT:CASH later if you like.
    Lead
    RD
    • It might be beneficial to add in NHS designation as well, if we're going to have the other designations. Since the S&HC is mentioned in the history, it would be good to add that here as well. This whole paragraph could be shunted to the end of the RD to get the "meat" of the section up front, since the legal definitions aren't all that interesting in comparison.
    • "northwest-southeast" needs an en dash (–)
    • Is the word "interchange" ever used as a part of the name of the Orange Crush? If so, it should be capitalized, but I'll defer to local usage here.
    • If this article is headed to FAC, traffic count data would be a good thing to mention, possibly in the same paragraph as all of the legal definitions, etc. If you mention the highest and lowest values adjacent to each other, you'll avoid the comparison issue from Brianboulton at the US 2 FAC.
    History
    Future
    • "The most recent plans were for a toll road elevated above the Santa Ana River rather than through existing neighborhoods, only extending south to the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405) in Costa Mesa with connections to the Corona del Mar Freeway (State Route 73)." When were these plans proposed? Who proposed them?
    • "The extension was most recently considered as two 11.2-mile-long (18.0 km), two-lane viaducts, costing $950 million; the toll road franchise expired in January 2001." Again, who did the consideration and when? Who had the toll road franchise? Why did it expire?
    Exit list
    References
    External links

    Overall, the article is good, and most of my comments are of the nitpicky variety. I'd be happy to support promotion after they're fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All issues replied to above. --Rschen7754 10:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from –Fredddie™ 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead and infobox
    1. You could add counties to the infobox. I'm not sure if that's your preference or an old WP:CASH style.
      None of the other CA articles have them. I mean, I suppose they could be added, but if so, I'd rather it got added across the board. --Rschen7754 21:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I assumed as much. I won't force it. –Fredddie™ 21:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The paragraph that summarizes the history seems to have big jumps. That is, it goes from the 1950s to today in only four sentences. I don't know, it just seems to be missing something in between.
      The history does this too. I added the 1998 date, and the 1964 date, so it's not as bad now. --Rschen7754 05:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The two sentences about unconstructed sections could seem contradictory to some readers. The unconstructed portion of the Orange Freeway was built in the 1970s, yet there is an unconstructed section that would go to Santa Ana. Would the extension not be part of the Orange Freeway?
      Rephrased. --Rschen7754 05:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    RD
    1. Is the Orange Crush interchange still a bottleneck?
      Clarified wording; not sure if it is still today. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "SR 57 briefly passes through Placentia and Fullerton, providing access to California State University Fullerton." Does that seem redundant to anyone else? Yes, I know it's almost always called Cal State Fullerton.
      It doesn't seem redundant to me... --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The very next sentence, about going through Brea Canyon, seems to have too many commas. It may read better broken into two sentences.
      Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Near what's summit? The canyon?!
      Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "A short overlap carries SR 57 traffic on the outside of SR 60." I'm having a hard time picturing this sentence. It reads like both routes share the same right of way, but not the same ribbon of pavement. That doesn't seem like an overlap to me.
      Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. "...and is a freeway where built;..." Does this mean the whole route is a freeway?
      Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. The AADT figure lists cars only. Don't trucks use the freeway, too?
      Changed to vehicles. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    More to come... –Fredddie™ 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    History
    1. I have a feeling it's analogous to a spur route, but what exactly is a "spur of the Peninsular Ranges"?
      Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. It was added as a branch of Route 19. Does that mean it was numbered 19 or something else like 19A?
      Numbered 19. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. It should be early-to-mid-1930s as it's all one indefinite time period.
      Changed, though it conflicts with above. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Could we get away with dropping the time period altogether? –Fredddie™ 23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really, as this is a loss of information. --Rschen7754 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, did some research. Since "early-1930s" is wrong, but "mid-1930s" is correct, you should use "early to mid-1930s". Or you can do whatever you want. The rules of grammar are quite flexible here. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "This became part of the proposed Temescal Freeway (later Corona Freeway); a southerly extension of the Orange Freeway[23] to Legislative Route 60 (SR 1) near Huntington Beach was added in 1959 as Route 273." The post-semicolon half of this sentence seems to be a run-on.
      Not a run-on; don't see any issues. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "The last pieces of that portion were through Brea Canyon, opened March 13, 1972,[32] and the four-level Kellogg Hill Interchange at I-10, dedicated May 1, 1972, and opened soon after.[33]" This would read better as two separate sentences.
      Edited to improve flow; we lose the parallel structure if we split it. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. I don't like the sentence fragments in parentheses. I'm OK with "Riverside Freeway (SR 91)", but not "(though the subsequent deletion from the Streets and Highways Code did not take place until 1981[34])."
      Removed. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Future
    1. You should clarify; do the two 11.2-mile-long viaducts cost $950 million each or total?
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The toll road franchise sentence seems odd attached to the previous sentence. Especially since the reader has had no prior knowledge of the franchise.
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exit list
    1. Since it starts at postmile 10.83, should the reader assume the unconstructed part would start at postmile 0? A note clarifying this would help. I'll look at the template to see what we can do.
      In theory, yes; since it's Caltrans though, it might be a bit off. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostly, I'm asking for clarifications and tweaks to improve readability. Otherwise, great job. –Fredddie™ 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All issues replied to. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    M-553 (Michigan highway)

    [edit]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The result of the discussion was to promote the article to A-class. — PCB 03:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Toolbox

    M-553 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: I just merged this article together with M-554. Given that this is heavy on MDOT press releases (the local paper didn't really cover some of these developments), I don't plan on taking this article to FAC. I do think that this article merits one last bump in assessment though.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 03:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. In the infobox, can you clarify what "K.I. Sawyer" is?
    2. Why is a CR listed as a major intersection in the infobox?
    3. In the lead, add a link to Marquette, Michigan and also specify what route the southern terminus is at?
    4. Mention when CR 553 was established.
    5. In the route description, add a reference about the access road being named for Clarence "Kelly" Johnson .
    6. In the second paragraph of the RD, do not use "M-553 in back-to-back sentences.
    7. Add a wikilink for "center turn lane".
    8. Maybe mention where McClellan Avenue continues north to.
    9. Why is the access road to the airport and CR 480 listed in the major intersections? I thought anything below state routes were not notable enough for a junction list. Dough4872 03:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies
    1. Well, K.I. Sawyer is an unincorporated community. When the USPS maintained a post office there during the base days, it was "K.I. Saywer AFB, Michigan 49851". Now that the base closed, the "AFB" has been dropped from the community name. (The "K.I." can't be dropped unless Sawyer, Michigan renames itself.)
    2. It's a major intersection in the county. Also, the county has proposed to transfer CR 480 to the state (see M-28 (Michigan highway)#Future.
    3. Done.
    4. I don't have a date for when the original county roads were established. The numbered system that's still in use by Marquette County dates back to the early 20th century.
      • Is it possible for some research to be done here? This is critical information for the road as it just did not appear randomly before 1998. Dough4872 04:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added some stuff, and it looks like the county road commission may have some stuff on file at Peter White... I guess I wanted to stay in the UP for a few more days... However, if I can't find anything more, what I have from the old state maps will be it. Imzadi 1979 → 11:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Done. I'll try to find the actually 1975 Time article on microfilm in the next few days to supplement the rest of the URL citation.
    6. None do. The sentences start with "North of", "As the", "M-553 descends", "The highway", "North of", "North of", "The trunkline ", "With few", and "M-553 descends"
      • Im not talking about the beginnings, I'm talking about "North of the river, M-553 ascends part of the west side of Mount Mesnard before leveling off near the intersection with Division Street. North of that intersection, M-553 follows McClellan Avenue as a four-lane boulevard divided by a center turn lane through a residential area on the south side of the city. ", where M-553 is used in both sentences, one of the instances should be changed. Also, I do not think its a good idea to begin both sentences with "North of". Dough4872 04:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Done.
    8. Done.
    9. WP:IAR. In the case of CR 480, for the same reasons it's in the infobox. For the access road, it's also a major destination for traffic along the road. That's the gateway from points north to the airport and K.I. Sawyer community, a counterpart to M-94 being the gateway from points south.
    Let me know if you have any other suggestions or questions. Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I will support the article. Hopefully, more information can be found concerning the history of CR 553. Dough4872 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues from Rschen7754 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments
      • CR 553 dates back to the 1930s and was fully paved in the 1940s. A segment of the roadway was relocated in the 1950s. - combine sentences
      • At the same time M-554 was decommissioned and turned over to the city's jurisdiction. - needs comma
      • History - need a sentence saying that M-553 began as a county road; this isn't clear.
      • Some of your paragraphs are 1-2 sentences; try to merge some of them.
      • The footnote would go better in the main text.
      • M-554 section - The signage was changed on November 9, 2005 reflecting the changeover of M-554 and BUS US 41 to the city's control and McClellan Avenue to the state's control. - comma after date
      • Should be a support once these are addressed. --Rschen7754 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me know if those changes I just made address your comments. I combined two paragraphs together, and for the other short one, I moved the footnote directly into it. For the history section comment, I split up the first sentence, but expanded the first half a bit to explicitly mention that it was a CR. Imzadi 1979 → 01:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved issues from –Fredddie™ 22:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox
    1. If there is not going to be KML (I'm assuming it's in the works), there should be an inset map showing the map's range.
    2. Maybe color in the white space on the map
    Lead
    1. "The trunkline was originally County Road 553 (CR 553) in Marquette County." may be better served at the start of the second paragraph.
    2. Instead of "military base", how about "US Air Force base" or even a link to K.I. Sawyer?
    3. "and it is the site of several businesses." sounds a bit dry. How does "and several businesses are located there."? Yes, it's passive voice, but as long as there are still businesses there, it should be fine.
    4. "At the same time, M-554 was decommissioned and turned over to the city's jurisdiction." → "At the same time, M-554 was turned over to the city's jurisdiction." Decommissioned and turned over are redundant, plus you explain it in greater detail below.
    Route description
    1. "Neighborhood" to describe New Swanzy seems odd. I'm not saying it's wrong, just odd.
    2. "Runway complex"? There's only one runway at K.I. Sawyer, so I'm not sure that's the best word. Tarmac or just runway might be better.
    3. Isn't Air Force supposed to be capitalized? It seems like it would be hard to speak generally about an air force that once occupied the base
    4. What was Kelly Johnson noted for? I'm only looking for a few words, not a paragraph.
    5. Does M-553 start at a higher elevation then head downhill?
    6. "No section of M-553 has been listed on the National Highway System," → "No section of M-553 is listed on the National Highway System," It sounds like you're anticipating M-553 going on the NHS sometime soon.
    History
    1. There weren't any Indian trails over which M-553 was built?
    2. Was CR 553 always numbered as such?
    3. Even if it's the only trailer park on Pioneer Road, I might switch to an indefinite article just so it doesn't read like they're being singled out even if it's for a noble cause.
    4. In that same sentence, "officials at the city"→"city officials".
    5. US Congress approved funding, or is the state legislature also called Congress?
    6. "Construction crews were working on blasting rock, drainage and other earthworks." Seems to be an abrupt end, maybe the voice is wrong?
    7. The Michigan left intersection was designed that way? May not hurt to mention that.
    8. "(Michigan left intersections are common in the Lower Peninsula, but this intersection was the first in the UP built that way.)" Get rid of the parens.
    9. Should "Rationalization" be capitalized?
    10. You should clarify that the remainder of CR 553 (M-554) was along Division Street.
    11. Was the school zone implemented after it was considered?
    Major intersections
    1. Maybe put a direction behind McClellan Avenue. I know that's your standard practice, but it looks like it's missing something.
    M-554
    1. "in a section of the city that is relatively flat with trees;"→"in a tree-lined section of the city that is relatively flat; "With trees" seemed like it was tacked on as an afterthought.
    2. The last paragraph of this section seems entirely redundant to the last paragraph of the History section

    OK, no Earth-shattering changes are required, but these suggestions will only help. –Fredddie™ 03:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies
    • Infobox: maps has been updated. Yes, a KML is coming at some point, but I still updated the map to make it purty.
    • Lead: all should be done.
    • RD:
      1. Around here, we'd call them "locations", but I figured that neighborhood was something better understood by a wider range of editors. Negaunee has Cambria Location, Rolling Mill Location, etc, that were neighborhoods that built up in the immediate vicinity of one of the original mines. On either side of the unincorporated community of Gwinn are Austin, Princeton and New Swanzy locations in Forsyth Township.
      2. Done.
      3. Well, The AP Stylebook agrees with you that this doesn't go all lowercase on generic mentions.
      4. Done.
      5. Well, kinda. it does start at a higher elevation, heads up hill a bit before the Sawyer area, heads down a long grade by the fairgrounds and one more long grade at Glass's Corner by the ski hill, but the highway heads back up hill on the other side of the Carp River.
      6. Well, since it is part of an intermodal connector and a designated regional transportation corridor, one could reasonably assume it should be in the NHS...
    • History:
      • 1& 2. No Indian trails, and as far as my sources indicate, it's always had the CR 553 number. (Those numbers were assigned statewide in a rough grid pattern dating back to the 1930s that keeps repeating as needed to cover the state.
      • 3–8: Done.
      • 9. That was the name of the process according to MDOT, so yeah, I'd say it should be capitalized.
      • 10&11: Done.
    • Major intersections: done.
    • M-554: Did the first, and the second is intentional because the M-554 redirect points to that section, and it has the additional detail of what was done with M-554 after the jurisdictional transfer.
    Yeah, nothing was all that big, and everything should be done. I did add a tidbit about how M-554 was signed on some maps, although I'm not 100% committed to retaining that sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 06:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from  VC  03:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead
    1. Saying "main highway connection" in the second sentence sounds strange. I would mention both termini in the second sentence and elaborate with the K.I. Sawyer information in the third sentence. The content of the fourth and fifth sentences seem not very important for a Lead and come across as filler. Overall, you can condense the first paragraph down to three or four sentences and not lose anything. I can offer a suggestion:
    2. "transferred by the Marquette County Road Commission" Change "by" to "from"
    3. I would wikilink either "M-554" or "related trunkline" as an anchor link to the Related trunkline section.
    Replies
    1. Done, sorta. You risk under-summarizing the section and losing contextual clues as to the location of the roadway. As a second point, if we shrunk the paragraph down to 4 sentences, it would be misbalanced compared to the length of the second paragraph that summarizes the history and M-554 sections. It wouldn't work to start shuffling stuff back into the first paragraph now to keep the paragraphs balanced in terms of length. I didn't add the name of the ski hill to avoid text that seems to promote
      I recognize your concern about balancing paragraph size, but that should not solely determine whether or not to include questionably notable information in the lead. I am perfectly fine with the Lead being one long paragraph. I do not think there are NPOV problems in mentioning the name of a ski area; the location of a ski area is a fact and quite notable.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, we don't need to list the business name in the lead, especially when there's the issue of possible confusion between Marquette Mountain (the business) located on Cliffs Ridge (the hill) a few miles from Mount Marquette (the bigger landform). Since the lead is a summary, some specific details are best left to the body of the article. I don't think the other details you want to remove are "questionably notable" though, so I'm leaving them in. You're welcome to disagree. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree, but it is not a sticking point.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Done.
    3. Done.
    Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Route description
    1. I know this came up before, but describing New Swanzy as a neighborhood does not feel right. I would use hamlet, which you can wikilink if you want. I would mention Gwinn in relation to New Swanzy and un-wikilink New Swanzy because it redirects to Gwinn.
    2. Do you have a reference to this area being called the Sand Plains?
    3. I would put a comma after the wikilink to Kelly Johnson.
    4. Can you add a reference to the intersection with CR 480 being called the Crossroads?
    5. I would clarify that the center turn lane ends as the highway passes the elementary school and that there is a pedestrian bridge just south of the school.
    6. "M-553 descends one last hill and terminates at the Michigan left intersection with the US 41/M-28 expressway" Using the definite article before Michigan left sounds strange; I would change "the" to "its."
    7. I think the shapes of the text would look better if you moved one of the two images in the Route description to the History section.
    Replies
    1. Except that hamlets don't exist in Michigan. That article talks about a specific type of municipal entity in New York and Oregon. The local vernacular is "location", and neighborhood was used as a more general substitute. If I'm changing the word, it would be to "location" or possibly "community", although New Swanzy is no longer considered separate enough to appear on MDOT maps. MDOT no longer posts signs on either side of Austin, Princeton or New Swanzy nor lists them on the maps because they're not even distinct enough to be CDPs or unincorporated communities because they're "locations".
      I looked at the hamlet article again and it does focus on formal political units, so wikilinking might not be appropriate. Out of the choices presented, I like "community" best, but "location" would be better if you can elaborate on it and provide a reference to such places being called "locations." I think it would add more color to the article. Regardless of the vocabulary, I would still un-wikilink the location because it just redirects to Gwinn.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I changed it to community for now without the link. If I can update the Gwinn article to change it from "community" to "location", I will, but for now I'll match that terminology, sans wikilink. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This issue has been resolved.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I have to question if this needs a citation or not. That is what the area is called by locals, how it's referred to in news accounts and such. A quick search found: Lowe, K. S. (February 1984). "The Sand Plains Murders". Michigan Out of Doors. 38 (2). Lansing, MI: Michigan United Conservation Clubs: 24–25. ISSN 0026-2382., which is a magazine account of the murders of conservation officers in that area of Marquette County. I also found: Western UP Ecoteam. "Sands Plains Management Area (32)" (PDF). Draft Management Areas for the Western Upper Peninsula Ecoregion. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
      While the area being called the Sands Plains is unlikely to be controversial, readers are going to question why it is called that. I think it would be good to provide a brief explanation to sate their interest. You can use the second reference you provided to support it.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a short explanation, but not the footnote. Such uncontroversial details don't need citations. You can disagree, but I don't feel this needs a citation. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I continue to disagree with the stance that a citation is not needed.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Done.
    4. Again, I wonder if this needs citation, or not. Considering that the bar there is the Crossroads Bar, and gas station is the Crossroads Mini-Mart, and the the other businesses that advertise their locations as being at the Crossroads. Non-controversial items don't need explicit citations, per policy, and I can't see this place name being controversial. Peter White Library's directions also tell people to "[c]ontinue north on M-553 through the Crossroads' (intersection M-553 and CR-480) blinking light ..." so that should firmly establish that the name is correct.
      Once again, you have done much of the work toward addressing this point already. The reference you provided works fine toward supporting the name of the location.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not adding a footnote, not when Crossroads Bar is shown on Google Maps, and searches for businesses there in Google Maps turn up Crossroads Mini-Mart and Crossroads Truck Repair. If the word wasn't capitalized, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and a change in case for one letter shouldn't require a citation in a case of non-controversial information like this. You may disagree, but I'm not changing it. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I continue to disagree with the stance that a citation is not needed.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Done
    6. I changed it to "a" because as weird as this might sound, "its" seems to imply that the U-turns are on McClellan, not the bypass. US 41/M-28 has a Michigan left, but McClellan doesn't, exactly.
      That works better than my suggestion.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. I have another photo coming for the history section once it's released, or I give up an rephotograph it myself. I don't get any squishing with the current layout.
    Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize squishing will vary from computer to computer. There is also a lot of whitespace at the bottom of the section. Not a dealbreaker, though.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History
    1. "At the time, CR 553 ran north from Gwinn and turned northeasterly to a terminus on the south side of Marquette at Pioneer Road and Division Street." I would be more specific on the old route of the county highway, such as clearly indicating CR 553 used Division Street, or what is now Division Street, north to Pioneer Street. I would also mention the old alignments of the highway at K.I. Sawyer and Sands, which ties into the next comment.
    2. "In 1953, the county relocated CR 553 near the county airport so that the road spanned over the railroad on a bridge in a different location from the previous at-grade crossing." I would review this set of facts. According to the National Bridge Inventory, the bridge over the railroad west of K.I. Sawyer was built in 1976. Also, the USGS map of the K.I. Sawyer area dated 7/1/1981 shows the highway on its present alignment. A closer view dated 7/1/1975 does not show the present alignment. I looked at the area near the hamlet of Sands and found the present alignment through there was present on the 1981 map but not on the 1975 map. Would you be able to corroborate any of this with the official state highway maps from that era? I am not necessarily saying the previous quoted sentence is wrong, because the county highway could have been relocated twice at K.I. Sawyer.
    3. "The City of Marquette started planning an extension to McClellan Avenue southward to CR 553 in the 1970s." Change "extension to" to "extension of."
    4. "When the local study group completed its report in June 1997, CR 553 was included with M-35 and US 41 as part of the primary north–south traffic corridor in the Central Upper Peninsula." Is this the same study from 1996 mentioned two paragraphs prior? If it is, I would move this sentence and the following sentence to the paragraph that first mentions the study. If they are different studies, I would still move the sentences because it is strange talking about a study within several sentences about construction.
    5. "about 9,200 miles (14,800 km) of roadway were investigated as part of the Rationalization plan as potential candidates for state maintenance." I suggest rewriting as "about 9,200 miles (14,800 km) of roadway were investigated as potential candidates for state maintenance as part of the Rationalization plan."
    6. "MDOT renumbered the two roads across K.I. Sawyer as an extension to M-94" Change "extension to" to "extension of."
    7. "That latter highway designation stopped at the intersection with McClellan Avenue in the city of Marquette" I would rewrite as "The latter highway designation then terminated at the southern end of McClellan Avenue." As it is, the sentence is confusing because the roadway continues as McClellan Avenue instead of cars having to make a turn.
    8. Do you have a source for the school zone "not implemented when the speed limits were left untouched."?
    Replies
    1. There is no reply to History comment #1.  VC  03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Well, I can't figure out why USGS doesn't agree with my research, but the MDOT maps don't show any routing changes in that area after the 1950s. The articles I have from the newspaper also discuss the realignment of CR 480 after the MCRC built their asphalt plant in that time period. CR 480, and its sibling Old CR 480, are the only other similarly named pair of county roads in the county that I know of. CR 480 was also realigned so that the road would cross a rail line on a bridge instead of at-grade. As for the bridge's 1976 date, it's not unlikely that they replaced the bridge at that time at approximately 23 years of age. Also the northern end of Old CR 553 and the western end of Old CR 480 have dirt berms over the paved ROW to close them to traffic without explicit entrances to the current ROW. The eastern end of Old CR 480 has an intersection with the current ROW and the southern end of Old CR 553 has an intersection with what is now M-94. Similar methods to realign the roadways from similar time periods. Why USGS omitted the current alignment for some many years, I just can't tell you, but MDOT has it correct back to 1953.
      From the way you explain it, it sounds like you think in a conflict between the MDOT and newspaper sources, and the NBI and USGS sources, the MDOT and newspaper sources are more authoritative. It is possible a USGS map could be wrong and a bridge could be replaced after only 23 years, but I find that hard to believe that both are true. Can you check your historical Michigan maps again for CR 553 being displayed with a curvier path compared to the straight path it follows today? The current Michigan highway map shows the rampant curves in M-35; perhaps that is the case for CR 553 as well before it was rerouted.
      Anyway, in looking for more evidence, I found an SPS where someone talks about living at the AFB in the 1960s and saying CR 553 was much closer to the base than it is now. Later on, I found a bunch of Marquette County Atlases from Rockford Map Publishers at historicmapworks.com. Using Overlay mode (because you get a limited number of views in Zoomify mode), check out Forsyth T45N-R25W and compare 1973 with 1976.  VC  03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This issue has been resolved.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Done.
    4. Done.
    5. Done
    6. Done.
    7. Done.
    8. Updated. I hadn't been on that section of M-553 in a while, and the paper never chose to cover the changes, but the TV station did.
    Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Related trunkline
    1. It is not explicit that M-554 followed Division Street between its endpoints until the last sentence of the section. I think you should mention that in the first or second sentence. If necessary, you can make the distinction between "M-554 followed Division Street" and "M-554 followed what is now Division Street."
    Reply
    1. Done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    References
    1. Ref 35 looks awkward with the bullet point. I would split into two references.
    Reply
    1. Yet reviewers at FACs I've been watching have been suggesting that citations get bundled. It's done, but I reserve the right to revert it if someone suggests otherwise. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the status of this review? --Rschen7754 03:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All issues have been resolved, or at least are not sticking points with me, except #2 and #4 under Route description. Imzadi1979 and I disagree on those issues and we are probably at an impasse. I am not sure if I have the authority to ask for second opinions on those subjects, but I would like some other explicit input.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, in my opinion the issues are so minor that they aren't worth squabbling over. If you can't work out a compromise, I would suggest posting at WT:V and/or WP:NORN to solicit additional opinions, and then act according to those opinions. --Rschen7754 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my take on the situation. I do not see any problem with not having to add a reference for Sand Plains and Crossroads as these claims are uncontroversial. For instance, Pennsylvania Route 463 does not have a reference stating the intersection with US 202/PA 309 is known as Five Points as this claim is widely known through local businesses. However, there is no harm in adding a reference to verify Sand Plains and Crossroads. If adding the references is needed to get the support, I would say just add the references, it would not do anything to hurt the article. Dough4872 00:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I still have reservations about the unsupported place names, but since everything else is resolved, I will let the next level (if relevant) deal with that.  VC  03:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    U.S. Route 23 in Michigan

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    U.S. Route 23 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: This is the longest US Highway in Michigan, so following in the footsteps of M-28, it deserves attention and a place at the top levels of the assessment scale. Before I'd take this to FAC, I plan on updating the map and adding the KML/shapefile data to this article, however that is of minor importance at this time.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 11:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 02:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by Dough4872

    [edit]
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 04:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. Can some details about the physical surroundings be added to the lead?
    2. Maybe mention the two designations it replaced in the lead.
    3. I don't see how a picture of a water tower without showing the highway is relevant to the article.
    4. "East of Brighton, the freeway intersects I-96 and continues north to an intersection with M-59 south of Hartland. The freeway turns northeasterly by Runyon Lake and runs toward the city of Fenton.", change one of the instances of "the freeway".
    5. Can the physical surroundings in the Flint area be discussed? I'm assuming its not as rural as the previous segment.
    6. Can the traffic counts be moved to the overall description of the route at the beginning of the route description? It is kind of random to have them in the middle of the route description.
    7. Reference needed for "These traffic counts are expressed in terms of annual average daily traffic (AADT), which is a statistical calculation of the average daily number of vehicles on a segment of roadway."
    8. I'd still prefer if the proper name of the outlet mall would be mentioned, but I won't oppose if its not added.
    9. You use "turns" a lot in the route description. Can some other verbs be used in place of some of these instances?
    10. Can the physical surroundings at the beginning of the stretch of the route along Lake Huron be mentioned?
    11. The sentence "The southern part of what is now US 23 in the state wasn't left out of the auto trail craze." sounds awkward. I would also reword the contraction.
    12. I've noticed that business routes of US 23 are inconsistently abbreviated "BUS US 23", "U.S. Route 23 Business", and "Business US 23". Is it possible to be consistent throughout the article? Dough4872 02:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to others, I will be out of town through the middle of the coming week; I'm not ignoring this, but I will be occupied. I would encourage others to continue to make comments and provide discussion on current comments so I can work at all of them when I return. Imzadi 1979 → 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies
    1. Done, one sentence added.
    2. I don't see the point. After adding the summaries of the sections not mentioned in the lead, the lead is long enough. We already have plenty of historical information in the lead. Something has to be left to the body of the article to entice people to read the article.
    3. Find a replacement that's of decent quality, but that is a landmark for the area.
    4. Done.
    5. Done.
    6. They're where they are to provide geographic context. See M-28 (Michigan highway), M-35 (Michigan highway), U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, et al.
    7. That's a non-controversial definition of a term. It doesn't need citation. Read the policy, not everything needs a footnote.
    8. The mall doesn't have an article. (Yeah, I know that Cheboygan Bascule Bridge is a redlink, but Andrew Jameson (talk · contribs) is currently making articles for all of the bridges on the NRHP so it won't be a redlink for long.)
    9. Done.
    10. Done.
    11. Done.
    12. Ok, I missed that, but someone had just used the pipe trick on the one link, which did that. Fixed.
    Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I will now support the article. Dough4872 04:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues from –Fredddie™ 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox
    1. Do you think the tourist routes would look better with a line break?
    Lead
    1. a major 362.33-mile should be "a major, 362.33-mile-long (583.11 km),". Even if you don't agree with the -long, the commas should still be there.
    2. I don't think any of the sentences in the lead's first paragraph should not be there, I don't think they flow together very well as they are now.
    3. Big jump from Indian trails to becoming a USH.
    4. The Zilwaukee Bridge sentence feels like it was tacked on as an afterthought.
    RD
    1. Have we linked to concurrency (road) yet?
    2. Wouldn't US 223 turn onto St. Anthony Road?
    3. How does this sound instead? "About 5 miles (8.0 km) north of the state line, US 223 leaves the freeway and turns west onto St. Anthony Road."
    4. You may want to clarify that US 23 stays on the freeway. I almost missed it myself.
    5. The sentences describing Ann Arbor are hard to follow along.
      1. "Between the latter interchange and the one for Washtenaw Avenue" could be simplified to "Between I-94 and Washtenaw Avenue"
      2. The business loops also run west along a run-on sentence.
      3. Does M-17 run east on Washtenaw Avenue?
      4. You say Washtenaw a lot, which isn't your fault. It may benefit our readers by piping the WCC link to say "a community college"
    6. "US 23 crosses into Livingston County in Whitmore Lake near the water body of the same name." You could say "In Whitmore Lake, US 23 crosses into Livingston County near the city's eponymous body of water."
    7. I know why it's there, but "US 23 runs through fields as it approaches the Flint area." sounds silly.
    8. A courtesy link for I-75 may be needed in the first paragraph of the Flint section.
    9. "The freeway has an interchange with I-69..." you may want to use a different word than freeway there. I had to reread it to make sure it was the combined I-75/US 23 freeway.
    10. The sentence mentioning the Flint River could be flipped, using crosses as the main verb.
    11. I know trunkline is the official term for any state highway in Michigan, but to me, I picture a two-lane highway. Seeing it to describe a freeway section throws me off.
    12. Should it be "bypasses Saginaw to the east"?
    13. "North of downtown" what city?
    14. The exit numbers seem odd here. Were the road's interchanges previously unnumbered up to this point?
    15. I still don't like the word terminus. Are US 10 and M-25 on the same road, but heading in opposite directions, at this interchange? It's not entirely clear.
    16. The M-13 connector sentence is wonky; the two halves do not flow together.
    17. "from 20,763 vehicles per day to 4,466 vehicles" could probably be reworeded as "from 20,763 vehicles to 4,466 vehicles per day". Someone else may know better, but the first vehicles could be removed altogether: "from 20,763 to 4,466 vehicles per day".
    18. Courtesy link for Standish?
    19. "Huron Road turns northeasterly..." sounds like US 23 turns off of Huron Road.
    20. What kind of direction is "around Saginaw Bay"? Likewise for Tawas Bay.
    21. How does this sound: "State Street continues westerly as C-66 as US 23 turns north on Main Street..."?
    22. Ironic that Mackinaw City is a village, isn't it?
    History
    1. I don't like the paragraph about the Indian trails, but I can't exactly pin down why. I think it's because it's only three sentences. But I really don't know if there's that much more you can say about it.
    2. It seems like the East Michigan Pike versus Dixie Highway information is repeated unnecessarily.
    3. I think a map of the old routings would benefit the section. I don't think it needs to be MTF quality, but at least it would give the reader some context. This would be in addition to any KML features you're planning on adding.
    4. "...US 23 ran concurrently with US 10." Have you linked to concurrency (road) yet? I don't recall seeing any likely words linked.
    5. "The M-171 designation was applied to the former routing by way of Mikado and Lincoln." Was M-171 extended or was this a whole new M-171?
    6. This may not be doable, but a picture of the Zilwaukee drawbridge would be neat.
    7. What kind of accident delayed opening the new Zilwaukee Bridge? I'm not looking for a paragraph, just something more specific than "a major construction accident".
    Future
    1. "from Standish northerly, with proposed termini in either Tawas City, Oscoda or Alpena." is all wrong. Here's how:
      1. Earlier in the sentence, you said plans were studied, so proposed is redundant.
      2. Termini is plural and you've already defined the southern end.
      3. Using either/or implies two options, you give three cities.
      • Replace it with "from Standish northerly to Tawas City, Oscoda, or Alpena."
    2. I'm left wanting more from this section. Did any plans gain any traction? Obviously none of them were built, but it wouldn't hurt to state the obvious here.
    Memorial designations
    1. The way the sentence which mentions the Roberts–Linton Highway reads like you've talked about it already. You haven't.
    2. Do Sunrise Coast or Sunrise Side have articles? A picture of a sunrise taken in this area would be splendid.
    Bridges and Exit list
    • Look fine

    As I was typing out where pictures would be nice, I remember that you said something to the effect of "if there were more (or better) pictures available, they'd be in here)" so clearly I'm not going to hold out because of pictures. They are merely suggestions of what I think would be beneficial. Overall, good job here. –Fredddie™ 02:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping to see if the comments will be addressed soon. --Rschen7754 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've implemented the suggestions above. If I haven't, please note. Imzadi 1979 → 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will review these tomorrow, but I was wondering if there were another current picture of the Zilwaukee Bridge. The aspect ratio on the current picture is wonky, so it looks smaller than the others in the default size. –Fredddie™ 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the status on this review? --Rschen7754 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Rschen7754 04:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead
    • Last sentence of paragraph 2 and first sentence of paragraph 3 start with the same word.
    Route description
    • North of town, the freeway passes near a cement plant. - not really seeing the significance of this.
      • If you gave the name, or provided some sort of claim to significance, it might be okay... but the way it's written, it seems like an insignificant detail.
    • The landscape takes on a more suburban residential character as the freeway approaches the Ann Arbor area. - wouldn't suburban imply more residential?
    • "the local community college" - why not give the name?
      • Yes, but the name of the college isn't obvious.
        • Still disagree, but won't let it hold up the ACR.
    • a series of "construction mishaps, cost overruns, and government foibles." - such as?
    • M-13 connector -> M-13 Connector
    • The connector runs due northward and I-75/US 23 turns northwesterly to bypass around Kawkawlin. - need a comma, otherwise dangerously close to a run-on
    • At Hale Road, US 23 meets the southern end of M-65 before it continues east to Au Gres. There it runs along the Saginaw Bay and crosses the Au Gres River. - sentences can be combined
    • Through this area, US 23 runs parallel to the Lake State Railway and crosses into the Huron National Forest. - does source 11 have the name of the railway?
      • I'd just add the citation for 7, just to be safe.
    History
    Future - no issues
    Designations
    • Most of US 23, along with US 2 in the Upper Peninsula, was designated the United Spanish War Veterans Memorial Highway - was? It's not now? Also, lost a period.
    • This two tour was created in May 1986 as part of the overall Great Lakes Circle Tour through a joint effort between MDOT and its counterparts in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ontario. - ?
    Bridges
    • It was built as "two-leaf bridge in a place where a single-leaf bridge probably would have sufficed." ... built as a?
      • Fixed myself.
    • The initial construction of the structure was delayed when the contractor died, but completed in December 1940. - how long was the delay for? Also, completed -> was completed?
    Major intersections - no issues
    See also
    • Special routes are quite important to the route. Why not do a small section in summary style?
      • As far as I'm aware, we do this for Interstates with associated 3dis...
    More to come... --Rschen7754 07:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll do my replies down here trying to keep them lining up with your comments above while we work.

    Lead
    • Done.
    RD
    • Well, I get lambasted for not including enough local landmarks...
    • I suppose that depends on how you look at it, but highways in some suburbs are also the commercial zones with the residential subdivisions kept away from them too.
    • Washtenaw Community College... Washtenaw Avenue... Washtenaw County... we were getting into Washtenaw overload in that part of the article, which is why we glossed the link that way.
    • Well, the paper MDOT map (fn3) shows rail lines, but not the names of them. It also doesn't give the national forest boundaries, which is why I have to use Rand McNally (fn11) for that. Google (fn6) doesn't give either very well or at all. The only source I have for the rail line names/owners is the MDOT online railroad map (fn7).
    Special routes

    Done or commented for now... Imzadi 1979 → 09:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Review has been completed. --Rschen7754 22:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is fixed save the community college. I think that we'd be in Washtenaw overload if I unglossed the name. Imzadi 1979 → 03:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated. --Rschen7754 03:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support with disclaimer regarding the two points left unaddressed. I do have concerns about them, but not sufficient enough to hold up the article. --Rschen7754 04:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Withdrawn by nom. --Rschen7754 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Portage Glacier Highway

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    Portage Glacier Highway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: After a Peer review went uncommented on, I decided to go ahead and nominate this article. Its not the longest article, but for an 11-mile long road in rural Alaska, I feel this is covered substantially.
    Nominated by: Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 23:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by Fredddie

    [edit]

    Since this is your first HWY ACR, I'll explain my process here. I will split my comments by section of the article and any comments made are in order as I read it. I will begin shortly. –Fredddie™ 23:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox and lead
    1. You could probably comfortably pipe out Alaska in the infobox locations (Portage and Whittier)
    2. Where exactly is the road called Portage Glacier Road? I did a search on the page thinking I just wasn't seeing it; it's not there. You should not introduce information in the lead and then not mention it again in the main article.
    3. "Most of the highway travels through mainly rural areas of the northern Kenai Peninsula, with the Anton Anderson Memorial Tunnel passing under Maynard Mountain, part of the Chugach Mountain Range." The bolded part of that sentence is a separate thought from the beginning half of the sentence. Please split it out and then rewrite it so it's not a fragment.
    4. There is a large jump from the early 1900s to the year 2000. Did nothing happen in the interim?
    5. The "As of 2012, ..." sentence is just asking to become dated. I would remove it.
    6. Unless it's a highly controversial topic, don't put references in the lead. (National Forest Highway numbers are rarely controversial)
    • The biggest question I'm left with after reading the lead is this: how did people manage before the Anton Anderson Tunnel was bored?
    Route description
    1. First off, I would apply WP:LEAD and summarize the RD before you go on much further.
    Chugach Nat'l Forest
    1. First sentence
      1. "The highway begins as a section of road named the Portage Glacier Highway.[5]" Well, duh. If you can't tell, this detail really isn't necessary.
      2. "This road begins at the highway's western terminus, a junction with the Seward Highway, ..." Wordy.
      • Start out with something more concise, like "The Portage Glacier Highway begins at an intersection with the Seward Highway at the site..."
    2. Highways are linear objects, so "At this point..." is probably not the best way to start a sentence about a highway.
    3. You can probably combine the "At this point..." sentence with the next one.
      Except I wouldn't say continues yet (it just started) and it's heading southeast not "in an easterly direction".
    4. "Peaks of the Chugach Mountains..." rewrite this sentence so the road is the subject, not the mountains.
    5. Ref 7 (http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/plh/fh/documents/ak/AKFH-035.pdf) does not support the claim of going through wetlands.
    6. Don't use abbreviations until you have defined them (USFS).
    7. One mile is almost always converted to 1.6 km, even in approximation.
    8. There are four sentences describing a bridge crossing a creek.
      1. Bridges are built, not created
      2. Construction or reconstruction. Which is it?
      3. I know stuff there is named after Portage Glacier, but you don't have to say Portage so much.
    9. "The tunnel, which is..." Wordy
    10. 0.5 mi is actually an adjective in this instance. That should be formatted {{Convert|0.5|mi|km|adj=mid|-long}}
    11. Ref 10 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5251312.pdf) does not support the claim that Portage Lake is scenic. I am not necessarily saying it's not scenic, but it also borders on WP:NPOV.
    12. Actually the sentence with Ref 10 should be combined with the one before it.
    13. Placer Creek Bridge. Two sentences for a one sentence idea. Combine them.
    • I'm seeing a pattern here and hopefully after reading this you can see it as well. You are writing for an encyclopedia; our readers expect a higher standard of writing than this. You should write clear and concise sentences. That means one good sentence to explain a bridge crossing a creek – not four. Yes, you will lose a lot of length, but a good article is not necessarily long.
    Tunnel
    1. "(often referred to simply as the Whittier Tunnel)" put that between commas instead of parentheses.
    2. Don't tunnels go through mountains?
    3. "...automobile traffic and rail traffic..." the first traffic is redundant.
    4. Instead of linking highway tunnel, you should link to a list of North American highway and combined rail/highway tunnels by length.
    5. Tunnel upgrade? What tunnel upgrade?
    6. This seems like an odd place to mention the tunnel is tolled. (Why not in the Tolls section?)
    7. "Due to the fact that..." No sentence should have to suffer by starting with those words.
    Whittier
    1. You should mix up your verbs, you use pass twice in quick succession.
    2. Same thing with terminus and terminal. I never use terminus when I can use end.
    3. The NHS would be better suited for a section lead like I mentioned above.
    Traffic
    1. Something just seems...off...here. Maybe the others will have suggestions.
    Tolls
    1. Wouldn't this information be presented better as a table?
    History
    1. Was the highway called the Portage Glacier Highway in the early 1900s?
    2. Why did the U.S. Military "create" the tunnel?
    3. You used created in quick succession.
    4. The State of Alaska didn't build anything, I'd bet the DOT&PF did all the work.
    5. The timeline of this paragraph jumps around (1982 comes before 1998)
    Whittier Access Project
    1. We need to review MOS:HEAD to see if this is the right heading for this section.
    2. In, "...in a ceremony overseen by then-governor Tony Knowles.[11]" I'm not sure overseen is the right word.
    Major junctions
    1. I have a hard time believing it's really a toll plaza at MP 6.5
    2. There is no destination at the eastern end. I'd make it the ferry terminal.
    Overall

    This article needs a lot of work to be considered "A-Class". As it is now, I oppose. –Fredddie™ 02:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Imzadi1979

    [edit]

    I concur with the above, and I'm going to add my own comments on some specifics Fredddie didn't touch upon.

    Chugach Nat'l Forest

    Unlike Fredddie, I do change the metric conversion of an approximated measurement so that the metric is closer to the actual value. (I recall writing "less than one mile (1.3 km)" in an article before for something that was around 3/4 or 7/8 of a mile.) I've seen similar done when the Associate Press includes metric in their wire stories. These stories typically have alternate units in parentheses so that a news editor can swap the conversions into the body text for non-American audiences. However, since you're saying "another mile", you're implying a whole mile. So if it's not close enough to a full mile to make a full 1.6 kilometers, change the text to better reflect that this isn't about a full mile so that the smaller conversion makes sense. I think here though it's the apparent clash between one thing not equaling the other.

    Traffic

    I think I know why Fredddie's gut is telling him something is off: the initial traffic count is an annual total, not the usual average annual daily traffic (AADT). Then then next two are monthly averages, followed by an AADT. The mixture of time scales on them makes comparison hard.

    References
    1. "Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities" isn't linked in fn 1, yet it is in fn 3.
    2. Fns 4 and 15 both have FHWA linked; normally only the first time is linked to avoid WP:OVERLINKing.
    3. Fn 7 calls it "Western Federal Lands Highway Division" yet fn 22 uses "Western Federal Lands Highway". Which is it? (Note that if the name changed at some point, it would be appropriate for names not to match. AASHTO was once AASHO before the 1970s, so older items published or created by the group could have varying names, but I don't think we have that case here.)
    4. On fn 12, what type of source is this? If it's an online edition of a book or magazine, treat it as such and format it appropriately.
    5. Fns 20 and 21 have the inset name and edition as part of the map title, when they should be in the |inset= and |edition= parameters of the {{cite map}} template. Please don't use {{cite web}} with |format=Map because it's not consistent with the other map citations.
    6. For maps, please try to determine the cartography information as much as possible, just as you would include authorship details for books, magazine or newspaper articles, etc.
    7. For fn 24, I would seriously attempt to find out the volume, issue and page numbers to the article from that journal. Email a librarian at the law school and ask; they should be able to look it up and get you that information, especially if you say you don't need the article itself, just the rest of the bibliographic information. The journal has ISSN 0046-2276 as well that should be added. If you click that link to WorldCat, you might even find a library near you that has it where you can check the issue yourself. (When I do citations now, I try to make sure to find a ISBN for books, and ISSN for journals/magazines/newspapers or an OCLC for every possible source, even the online versions of print publications.)

    Based on these deficiencies and Fredddie's comments, I must also oppose at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Toolbox items
    1. Alt text is missing. Not a FA requirement, but something that should still be provided.
    2. There are no disambiguation links present, so that's good.
    3. The two FHWA NHS links change paths. FHWA just redid their website, so you probably should update the URLs to point to the new page locations.
    Image review

    We haven't typically done these, but I'm doing one here. Unless the images change, a link to this can be included in any potential FAC nomination statement so that reviewers at that forum won't have to duplicate the task In terms of licenses:

    1. File:Forest Route 35.svg—properly notated as originating in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and marked as being a public-domain work of the federal government. No issues here.
    2. File:Ruinsofportage.JPG—freely licensed by a wikimedian, no issue here.
    3. File:AntonAndersonTunnel.jpg—see #2
    4. File:Whittier-Tunnel-Interior-With-Safe-House-2008-May-31.jpg—see #2
    5. File:Whittier-welcome-sign.jpg—source website says: "© 5864 Alaska Cruise Transfer and Tours. All rights reserved." This has to be removed.
    6. File:Flag of Alaska.svg—public domain
    7. File:Blank shield.svg—see #2

    In terms of captions:

    1. No caption needed for the forest highway marker, the names in the infobox suffice.
    2. Caption is succinct
    3. See #2
    4. See #2
    5. See #2, but as a possible copyright violation, it has to be removed.
    6. The portal icons don't need captions because of their method of use.

    I have flagged the welcome sign photo for speedy deletion on Commons, please remove it from the article. If you don't, a bot will once deleted. You may wish to go through the remaining images and place the descriptions in {{information}} templates, and add the coordinates of the subjects' locations. (Not required at FAC, but still a very good idea.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dough4872

    [edit]

    Oppose - In addition to the prose issues mentioned by Fredddie and Imzadi1979, which I will skip over, I have a major concern with the history. It appears the first 100 years of the road's history is compressed into one paragraph. I'm sure there can be more to be said about the road. In the sentence "The Portage Glacier Highway was first created during the early 1900s[1] with the completion of the first stretch of road, a bridge over Portage Creek and the Portage Lake Tunnel.", I'm sure a more exact date can be found. Ditto for "By the mid-1950s, the portion of the highway traveling from the Seward Highway intersection to the western end of the railroad tunnel existed as an unimproved dirt road, as well as the portion of the highway located in Whittier." I would suggest doing the research and fully completing the history before nominating at ACR. The standards at A-class are higher than at GA as this essentially prepares articles for FAC. Overall, I would suggest this ACR be withdrawn in order to complete the history before nominated again. Dough4872 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Unless substantial efforts to address the issues are made, I plan to speedy close this after 00:01 UTC, July 1. --Rschen7754 06:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the copyvio picture that was just removed today and the nominator's past history with copyvio photos, you may close it even sooner. –Fredddie™ 22:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am withdrawing this nomination so that I can research more of the history of this highway. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Article was promoted to A-Class. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    H-58 (Michigan county highway)

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    H-58 (Michigan county highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: This county road literally took an Act of Congress to get paved through Alger County. It's come a long way, and yes, I know that the article needs a map, so if someone is good with GIS (I'm still learning) please add one. There was a previous PR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/H-58 (Michigan county highway), but it dates from 2008 and focused more on the name of the article than the content of the article.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 03:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. Can the lead use the exact mileage and not an approximate mileage?
    2. "Leaving town, H-58 becomes Munising–Van Meer–Shingleton Road and enters the national park", isn't it a national lakeshore? This should be changed to reflect that. There are a couple of other instances that need to be changed also.
    3. "H-58 reenters the park boundaries and approaches more Pictured Rocks facilities like the Hurricane River Campground, home to all the necessary camping facilities.", sounds a little promotional. I would rephrase the last part to "home to camping facilities".
    4. I noticed in the route description you use "90-degree" but "35°". Can you be consistent with the way you show degrees?
    5. Any traffic counts to include?
    6. The route description should mention whether or not H-58 is part of the National Highway System.
    7. "After the end of World War II, the gravel segment was extended north of Melstrand to the Buck Hill area; the earthen road was extended between the Adams Trail and Grand Marais by way of Au Sable Point", replace the semicolon with "and".
    8. "East of Grand Marais, the roadway was improved with gravel to the county line.", can you mention which county line?
    9. The sentence "Within two years, the remainder was marked as H-58 from Munising northeasterly to Grand Marais; between Connors and Miners Castle roads was also a section of H-13 as the two designations were run concurrently together" should be split.
    10. The M-77 line in the junction list should be split into two.
    11. I do not see the need for a note mentioning the terminus of the national lakeshore in the junction list as there is no note mentioning the beginning of it.
    12. References 26 and 31 come up as a 403 error. Dough4872 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replies—
    1. Reviewers at FAC have been critical of being overly precise in the prose, even if the length is perfectly accurate.
    2. A national lakeshore is a national park. The NPS considers them equivalent, and most sources talk about it as a (national) park in the generic.
    3. Fine... remove a little color from the guide book...
    4. I went with ° since that seems to be what MOS:NUM prefers.
    5. No because my source for AADT is for state highways only, not county roads.
    6. My map source for NHS status in Michigan doesn't list CRs.
    7. Done.
    8. Um, there's only one county line on H-58.
    9. It's been suggested in the past to join two sentences like that when both are cited to the same source.
    10. Done
    11. Added the approximate location where it enters the park.
    12. They work just fine if you click them in the article. The link checker might come up with an error that doesn't exist because it's an automated tool. Some websites can detect that and flag an error message to the tool even though an error doesn't exist. Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I will now support the article. Dough4872 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Fredddie
    Infobox and lead
    1. Circa with an exact date?
    2. The last half of the second paragraph (starting with "The H-58 designation...") could be split out into a separate paragraph. What do you think?
    3. There seems to be some verb tense inconsistency in the last sentence. You say "Paving projects were completed..." but also "...H-58 in Alger County is now paved." I'm not sure how it should be fixed, though. Perhaps it would read better to you if the "H-58 in Alger County" part were first.
    Route description
    1. "...H-58 passes out of town by the Neenah Paper Mill, ..." Do you mean the route has just left Munising? If so, this could be written more clearly. Also, the comma at the end really isn't necessary.
    2. "...outside of the southern boundary..." Parallel to the boundary or heading into the park?
    3. The location of the park visitor's center should have a reference.
    4. "Leaving town..." sounds weird if you read it like me and think the highway already left town by the paper mill.
    5. The quote seems a little dramatic, but that's just me.
    6. How much snow does the park get where the road is closed in winter?
    7. You say "community of Grand Marais" twice in quick succession.
    • Not really a fixable issue, but the RD is just a bit too travel-guidey for me. I can't remember if you're planning on going further after with this article after ACR, but don't be surprised if this comes up again.
    History
    1. Echoing one of the concerns of the DE 17 GAR, we should attempt to tidy up the "by <year>"s.
      All addressed so far... 21:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    2. "The ACRC had a five-stage plan..." maybe say "implemented" instead of "had".
    3. "Funding on the paving project between Buck Hill and the boundary of the national park was being held up..." Tense issue, should be "was held up". Both ways are correct, this way seems more direct.
    4. Same thing on "While the county had completed a segment..."
    5. "October 15, 2010, marking the opening to traffic." Seems like it's missing a word. "...marking the official opening to traffic"?
    6. "...someone has been spreading nails along the newly paved road." To me, it reads like it's accusing someone, which is borderline NPOV. Maybe say "...nails have been spread along the newly paved road."
    • I know the by years aren't exactly workable, but we should keep it as a goal.
    Junction list
    • It's fine.

    OK, finished reviewing. –Fredddie™ 01:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And I'm done with your comments... Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I'm writing this without internet connection, so I can't make any minor adjustments myself.
    • Lede
      • "initially, this county road was gravel or earth roadway between Munising and Kingston Corners and used other roads to connect to Grand Marais." - Too much road here; I believe roadway is redundant and removing it would solve the issue. used is also a possessive verb and sort of personifies the road. Perhaps travelled along?
      • "In the 1930s, the road was built to connect to Deer Park and to fill in the gap between Kingston Corners and Grand Marais." - This is kind of confusing... It existed in the 1920s, then it was built in the 1930s? Again, I think the problem here may be too many uses of "road". I usually make use of "route" to make it clear that the roadway changes but the designation is consistent, although perhaps using "a road" in place of "the road" would be... er... correcter.
      • "The southwestern segment between Munising and Van Meer was used as a section of M-94 from 1929 until it was transferred back to county control in the early 1960s." - Used again. Perhaps "was used as a section of" would be better as "formed part of"
      • "Initially, only the section of H-58 Grand Marais to Deer Park was given the number;" - I think a "from" is missing here and "of H-58" is redundant in the context of the previous sentence.
    • Route description
      • "The highway follows the eastern end of Munising Street through the end of town by the Neenah Paper Mill,[3] and turns northeasterly." -> "The highway follows the eastern end of Munising Street to the edge of town by the Neenah Paper Mill,[3] then turns northeasterly." (don't give me a "then" speech Dough (; )
      • "Farther east, H-58 meets H-15 in Van Meer, home of the Bear Trap Inn and Bar" - should be "further east" if I'm not mistaken. Is there some noteworthiness to this place by the way?
      • "Melstrand is located outside of the national park boundaries in the Lake Superior State Forest. H-58 continues through "burned and cut areas, meadows, maturing second growth, and the haunting sounds of silence".[4] H-58 reenters the park boundaries and approaches more Pictured Rocks facilities like the Hurricane River Campground, home to camping facilities." - These three sentences all read as a topic sentence in a paragraph. I think FAC will pick at the flow issue here.
      • "The road through this area travels northward towards Buck Hill near the intersection with the Adams Truck Trail." - "this area" and "near the intersection with the Adams Truck Trail" sort of conflict and make this sentence awkward.
      • "snow plows do not clear the snow from the roadway allowing it to be used as a snowmobile trail." - should have a comma between "roadway" and "allowing".
      • "This location gives motorists a chance to hike down to the lakeshore to see the Au Sable Point Lighthouse peeking above the trees to the east and the Grand Sable Dunes to the west along the lake." - "along the lake" is redundant.
      • "The roadway crosses the Hurricane River and turns southerly away from Lake Superior. H-58 turns back eastward near Grand Sable Lake, running between the north shore of the lake and the Grand Sable Dunes on the south shore of Lake Superior." - Any way of getting rid of one "Lake Superior" here? (optional)
      • "H-58 makes a 90° curve and turns northward" -> "H-58 makes a 90° curve northward" or "H-58 makes a 90° curve to the north"
      • "This town is home to a small harbor that was once the home of a lumber shipping port, and it was the location of thirty saloons, boarding houses, a dozen hotels, two newspapers, the Alger–Smith sawmill and a train taking passengers to Marquette." - Why so much description of the glory days of this town?
    • History
      • "Additional legislation was also passed that removed the original road construction mandate from the park.[33]" - Was this this legislation introduced by Stupak, or a new piece, given the two year gap?
      • Pardon my possible CanEHdianism, but is it "checks" or "cheques"?
      • "in a ceremony" -> "at a ceremony" or "during a ceremony"
    • Major intersections
      • No issues, looks good!
    Overall, mostly just some grammatical and flow issues that I can see. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, copy edits applied. As for the checks/cheques item, only American Express traveller's cheques use the British/Canadian spelling in the US, otherwise they are checks here. Imzadi 1979 → 18:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, looks essentially perfect now. The only concern I have left is the "Van Meer, home of the Bear Trap Inn and Bar"... As it is this just mentions the bar, but not why it is important to the town or the highway, or why it is noteworthy at all. Other than that I'm prepared to Support this promotion - the other reviwers seem to have found most of the kinks and I can't spot anything else myself that is concerning. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Withdrawn. Found over 50 articles in the LA Times archive. Good, but will require a large rewrite of the history. --Rschen7754 00:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    California State Route 55

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    California State Route 55 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: I brought this article from C-class to GA recently, and since the history is complete, I think it could stand a chance at ACR and FAC.
    Nominated by: Rschen7754 08:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. The southern terminus appears to be slightly south of SR 1. This should be fixed in the lead and infobox.
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 03:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "SR 55 runs between the Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) in Newport Beach to the south and the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) in Anaheim to the north" since you already defined SR 55 as standing for State Route 55, you can use abbreviations for SR 1 and SR 91.
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The route description seems kind of dry as it appears to only mention what cities it passes through and what roads it intersects. Can some detail about the physical surroundings be added? From looking at Google Maps, it appears like most of the freeway passes near suburban residential and commercial areas. Can this be mentioned at least once in the route description?
      Not done, and will not be done. The cities should provide enough detail. --Rschen7754 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just naming the cities will not provide detail, mentioning the surroundings at least once will let the reader know what surroundings SR 55 passes through. Dough4872 03:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Still not convinced. I'm pretty sure the route does not pass through farmland. --Rschen7754 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You and I may know that, but a reader from another part of the world may have no clue what Orange County is like, so some indication the road is in a suburban area should be mentioned. A brief mention in the lead would suffice, such as a sentence, "The freeway passes through suburban development in Orange County." Dough4872 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, begrudgingly. --Rschen7754 03:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. When first designated, what route was the northern terminus at?
      Added detail; it continued onto what is today another route, so I left out the northern terminus detail. --Rschen7754 23:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "In 1959 the freeway was renumbered as Route 55, and its route was shortened from Route 1 to the also-renumbered Route 91.", wasn't this from before the route was a freeway?
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 20:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Is there any information available on the planning of the freeway? It didn't just appear.
    7. The sentence "1995 also saw further widening of SR 55 between SR 22 and McFadden Avenue." needs to be reworded so it doesn't begin with a numeral.
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    8. "Newport channel bridge", shouldn't "channel" be capitalized? Dough4872 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed. --Rschen7754 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Iowa Highway 150

    [edit]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Toolbox

    Iowa Highway 150 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: OK, it's been a little while since I've been on this side of ACR. I did some research on this article a couple months ago as part of my Good Article pledge for this year, and I think the article turned out great. Once I was done, I thought it could go places after GAN. I've let it sit for a couple months, so now it's time to get out the polish. Depending on the feedback here, I may take it to FAC. Or not.
    Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 18:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 00:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. The lead could use some more detail, such as the physical surroundings of the route and roads that it intersects.
      What sort of detail? Please elaborate. –Fredddie™
      Say that the road passes through rural areas of agriculture along with the towns. You can also list the intersections it has with other notable numbered routes. Dough4872 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, lead expanded. I rearranged it a bit so the first paragraph talks about the towns and the intersecting roads, the second describes the scenery, and the third was unchanged. –Fredddie™ 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. When Iowa 150 was rerouted over Iowa 101, was the former alignment abandoned in that cars could not travel on it anymore? If not, I would find a better word than "abandoned" to use here.
      Done. –Fredddie™
      You missed an instance in the lead. I also do not think "vacated" is a good alternative in the "Iowa Highway 920" section. Dough4872 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What word would you like me to use? –Fredddie™
      I would try rewording the sentence to say "Iowa Highway 920 (Iowa 920) was the northern half of the section of Iowa 150 that had the designation removed from the highway when it was rerouted over Iowa 101. Dough4872 18:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's incredibly awkward, so I will defer to future comments. –Fredddie™
    3. In the route description, you use "turns" a lot. Can some of these instances be replaced?
      I agree; however all of these uses describe a low-speed change of direction, not unlike what you would do at after a stop sign. If you can think of any better words, please share them. –Fredddie™
    4. The sentence "South of the unincorporated community of Festina, the route straightened out on its way to Calmar." needs to be reworded.
      How so? –Fredddie™
      The word "straightened" does not agree with the rest of the sentence. Dough4872 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A simple tense change (which you could have done!) was all it needed. –Fredddie™
    5. The route description could use more information about the physical surroundings. Does the route pass homes or businesses in the towns that it runs through? Does the route pass through farmland or woodland in the countryside?
      I have listed courthouses, race tracks, river crossings, and and mentioned an area called "Little Switzerland". What exactly would you like? –Fredddie™
      Mention that in the rural areas that it passes farmland and in the towns where it passes homes and businesses. Dough4872 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I am going to defer to more comments on this. Small towns in Iowa are highly repetitive for lack of a better word. They have houses, a central business district, more houses, and a gas station or two. To say this for every town through which the highway passes would be horribly dry writing, I'm afraid. –Fredddie™ 04:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't even read the article, but from reading the comments, I am highly skeptical that this will add anything of value to the article. --Rschen7754 04:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that I've let it sit for a while, I think I'll add a little more to the rural parts, but you're right; it won't add much value to talk about every town in great detail. –Fredddie™ 04:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      With the additions to the lead, I feel that the scene is sufficiently set that you'll see a lot of cornfields. This is not an extraordinary claim for Iowa. –Fredddie™ 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. For the first part of the history section, I would add a header such as "Former routes".
      I don't think this addition will improve the article. –Fredddie™
    7. The sentence "In Cedar Rapids in the 1950s, as today's highway system was beginning to take shape, Iowa 150 was rerouted a couple times." needs to be reworded.
      Again, how so? –Fredddie™
      I would suggest moving around some of the words. "During the 1950s as today's highway system was beginning to take shape, Iowa 150 was rerouted a couple times in Cedar Rapids." would work. Dough4872 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      When I read your version, I think it's missing a comma. I will defer to future comments from others on this sentence. –Fredddie™
      I think Dough's version is better, but with a comma after 1950s. --Rschen7754 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, done. I also fixed what would have been the word "reroute" twice in close succession. –Fredddie™ 04:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    8. The sentence "In Iowa 150's case, the route was truncated at US 151 in Cedar Rapids, the duplications along US 151, Iowa 13, US 30, and Iowa 38 were removed, and the remaining segment from Tipton to Davenport was renumbered Iowa 130." is long and choppy. It may help to split it into two sentences.
      Done. –Fredddie™
    9. Same concerns with abandoned being used to describe the former part of Iowa 150 that became Iowa 920. Dough4872 00:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. –Fredddie™ 02:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      See comment above. Dough4872 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Review by Rschen7754

    Review pending. --Rschen7754 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will review shortly, but one thing that strikes me is that there are few non-DOT map sources. We don't care about this at GAN, but I usually include a disclaimer at the A-class level, because they do not always like that. --Rschen7754 08:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Speedy demote per consent of primary contributor. --Rschen7754 03:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington State Route 339

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Washington State Route 339/archive1

    Washington State Route 339 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Demote from A-Class
    Nominator's comments: This article is out of date. The ferry has not operated in five years, it was sold to Tanzania, and sunk. Hoping this can be updated, but may need to demote if that is not the case. [2] [3]
    Nominated by: Rschen7754
    First comment occurred: 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interstate 80 in Iowa

    [edit]
    Toolbox
    The article was promoted. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Interstate 80 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: This is probably the most important road in the state of Iowa. I'm proud of how much this article has improved, and I think it will easily get through FAC after this venue.
    Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 04:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    Great job. Support. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Image review by Imzadi1979

    Assuming this article heads to FAC in the future, it would be expedient to conduct a proper image review at this forum, so that it can be linked from the FAC to save time.

    As for the captions, all fit the FAC criteria on being concise, yet informative.

    • I would recommend consistently using "I-80" over spelling out "Interstate 80" in some captions and not others.
    • "I-35 / I-80 approaching the Des Moines River during flooding in 2008" isn't a full sentence, shouldn't have a period
    • The farm implement caption should have a period added since it is a full sentence.

    With the few caption tweaks, and some clarification on the one image (the photo might be released, but the sculpture likely has an underlying copyright on its own), then I can support promotion to A-Class on the basis of the images. I'll let the other reviewers get the prose since they are already. Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I pinged 25or6to4 (talk · contribs) to fill in the map sources if possible. How would I go about with the Kinze sculpture? I honestly don't know. –Fredddie™ 11:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the captions and went ahead and made sure everything had alt text, even though it's not required. –Fredddie™ 14:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support—the pending issue on the one image is easily done while waiting on others to act, and the prose has been vetted by others, so there's no reason to hold up promotion at this moment. I would not recommend opening a FAC while the status of the statue photo is still in doubt, but the simple solution is to remove it from the article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Dough4872

    I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

    1. Is it necessary to list when the road was reconstructed in the infobox?
      How is it not relevant? –Fredddie™
    2. I don't think it is a good idea to have " bypass Des Moines together" link to concurrency (road). I would prefer if that link is removed and instead Des Moines is wikilinked.
      There are already five links to Des Moines, Iowa. You want me to add another? –Fredddie™
      You don't have to necessarily add a link to Des Moines, but that phrase shouldn't link to the concurrency article. Dough4872 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Except you necessarily asked for a sixth wikilink for Des Moines. I will defer to other comments. –Fredddie™
      I'd suggest no link at all, that link is a bit odd there. --Rschen7754 05:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. In the first paragraph of the route description, it would help to mention where I-80 passes urban development and not farmland.
      It does. –Fredddie™
    4. Does the bridge over the Missouri River have a specific name? Is there a relevant article to link to?
      According to List of crossings of the Missouri River, it's the banal "Interstate 80 Bridge". Not really worth including if you ask me, but I did anyway. –Fredddie™
    5. The sentence "After which, the interstate leaves Council Bluffs and speed limits rise to the rural limit of 70 mph (110 km/h)" sounds awkward.
      Please suggest an alternate wording. –Fredddie™
      Change "After which" to "Following this". Dough4872 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see how this makes it better. –Fredddie™
      Following this does sound better; "after which" is an abrupt transition. --Rschen7754 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. In the sentence "Interchanges are somewhat regular; 3 to 6 miles (5 to 10 km) of Pottwattamie and Cass county farmland separate each exit from the next." what do you mean by "interchanges are somewhat regular"? Also, I would suggest rewording the sentence.
      It's explained after the semicolon. –Fredddie™
      I would suggest rewording the sentence to "Interchanges are somewhat regular, with 3 to 6 miles (5 to 10 km) of Pottwattamie and Cass county farmland separate each exit from the next." Dough4872 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the exact same sentence as mine. –Fredddie™
      Actually not, it has a comma instead of a semicolon and has a with after the comma. Dough4872 03:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Except you're not actually suggesting that I reword the sentence. Adding a word and changing punctuation is not rewording. –Fredddie™ 03:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I still suggest that the punctuation change be made. Dough4872 03:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? The two halves are each complete sentences that could stand up on their own. A semicolon is perfectly acceptable here. –Fredddie™ 04:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The part I take issue with is "somewhat regular"; I'd suggest "occur at regular intervals". --Rschen7754 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
       Done I was tired of waiting. Mauer (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. "US 71, which continues north towards Carroll, carries US 6 traffic to the interstate. This is the first of three times when US 6 traffic is routed along I-80." I would reword this by saying "US 71, which continues north towards Carroll, is also concurrent with US 6. At this point, US 6 begins its first of three concurrencies with I-80."
      I don't like your exact wording, but I get what you're saying. –Fredddie™
      I still think it needs to be reworded from the current version. Dough4872 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I will defer to other comments. –Fredddie™
      "Here, US 6 begins its first of three times" makes me cringe a bit. It sounds a bit too colloquial and discrete (I seem to remember bringing this up on someone else's ACR). --Rschen7754 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    8. In the sentence "After two miles (3.2 km), the routes enter Dallas County and meet CR F60, another former alignment of US 6", does Google Maps truly verify the former alignments of US 6? I think backup from historical maps is needed here.
      Yes it does. –Fredddie™
      Satellite imagery cannot prove that is a former alignment of US 6. While it is safe to assume so, I would prefer if a historical map can supplement the Google Maps reference. Dough4872 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    9. "Further east and seemingly in the middle of nowhere, at exit 201 for Iowa 21, there are competing truck stops on either side of the freeway." I don't think "seemingly in the middle of nowhere" is appropriate and needs to be removed. Also, is it a big deal if there are competing truck stops and a hotel at an exit? Dough4872 23:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't think of a better way to describe this interchange. The closest city with a population over 5000 people is at least 20 miles away. There's really nothing else there and for miles in either direction. –Fredddie™ 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think all this detail is necessary. I would suggest saying "Further east, in a rural part of Poweshiek County, I-80 comes to exit 201 for Iowa 21." Dough4872 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see a problem with the added detail. --Rschen7754 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I took a small break in the middle of this review, could you revisit this and remind me what needs to be done? A bulleted list will suffice. –Fredddie™ 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here are my remaining concerns:
    1. I suggest you remove the concurrency wikilink in the lead and leave no link at all.
      Removed. –Fredddie™
    2. I would suggest the change in point 5 be made based on feedback from both me and Rschen.
      This was already done without adding "following this". –Fredddie™
    3. "Here, US 6 begins its first of three times" needs to be changed as Rschen suggested.
      Don't sell yourself short. Rschen didn't suggest any changes, just that it did need to be changed. I combined what you suggested with what I originally wrote. –Fredddie™
    4. I still would like to see a historical map support the former alignment of US 6 as i feel satellite imagery alone cannot do it.
      Added 2003 map reference. –Fredddie™
    5. I still do not feel the excess detail is needed in describing exit 201. Dough4872 17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... I haven't figured out how I want to handle this yet. –Fredddie™ 22:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed middle of nowhere. I kept the other details for this reason: "You should write more about the physical surroundings." –Fredddie™ 00:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interstate 696

    [edit]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Toolbox
    The article was promoted. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Interstate 696 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: I present to you, Michigan's Autobahn, the Interstate that they said would never be built, the one, the only, the Walter P. Reuther Freeway, aka I-696. Enjoy! Yes, I know it needs a few more photos, but DanTheMan474 (talk · contribs) is supposed to help out there. Any other suggested sources of illustrative media would be appreciated.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. " It starts by branching off I-96 and I-275 at the west end in Novi and ends by merging into I-94 at St. Clair Shores on the east end." - The second clause of the sentences has the verb "end" twice. Can this be fixed?
    2. I would perhaps mention the part about I-696 being called Detroit's Autobahn in the last paragraph of the route description. It seems out of place in the beginning.
    3. The sentence "Near the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant, I-696 has another stack interchange, this time for Mound Road, making a slight bend to the south through the complex." sounds choppy.
    4. The history does not explicitly mention that the I-98 designation was rejected and does not say when I-696 was first designated for the planned freeway.
    5. "The first segment of the Reuther built was the western third of the completed freeway which opened in 1963–64 at a cost of $16.6 million." - wasn't it not called the Reuther at this time?
    6. Can you clarify where the eastern section that opened ran from to from? Dough4872 00:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies
    1. Done.
    2. Maybe, but then it's tacked on as an afterthought, where in the current location, it's integrated into the text.
    3. Reworded.
    4. I've yet to find a document or map that states when I-696 was approved or that I-98 was rejected.
    5. Changed
    6. Clarified. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 18:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Fredddie

    I will begin a review soon. –Fredddie™ 23:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox and lead
    1. You might want to show that there was a gap in construction in the |history=
    2. I know about WP:OBVIOUS, but would "as the Walter P. Reuther Freeway, named for the prominent auto industry union head." sound better?
    3. I don't think "partially circling" is the right term for describing I-696 since it's basically a straight line. I'm not so sure how it should be fixed.
    4. The comma after 1961 should be removed. There is no date to disambiguate with commas, so it's not needed.
    5. Same thing with 1963
    6. Maybe move the sentence about Reuther to the second paragraph? I feel like the two sentences would be better together.
    7. The last sentence of the lead seems oddly constructed. Maybe split it in two?

    More to come. –Fredddie™ 00:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Route description
    1. In the first picture, you should be obvious and say which direction's end that is.
    2. If possible, could you mention why it's called Detroit's Autobahn?
    3. Does the Novi interchange have a name?
    4. What direction does the Novi-Farmington Hills line run?
    5. You should mention how long the M-10 interchange is.
    6. Do you have a reference for the section near 10 Mile Rd being known for its retaining walls?
    7. I'd change "service drives" to "frontage roads"
    8. Later, you mention the Jewish center in the vicinity of the tunnels, but not in the RD. What gives?
    9. Quadpoint→quadripoint
    History
    1. When you mention the freeway being named after Reuther, it reads like the western third opened, then it was named after Reuther, and then he died.
    2. Was the eastern section controversial? Seems odd to put its construction under a header about the middle.
    3. Is Gov. Romney locking the people in the room cited to the NYT article?

     Exit list

     Related trunkline

    That should do it. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies above. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Nice work. –Fredddie™ 03:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Image review:
    1. File:I-696.svg - PD, could use PD-MUTCD.
    2. File:Interstate 696 (Michigan) map.png - Released into PD by user. Is there a source for the GIS data?
    3. File:Mixing Bowl Interchange (Novi, Michigan).png - Released into PD by user.
    4. File:I-696 tunnel.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0 image from Flickr.
    5. File:Interstate 696 and M-1 aerial.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0 image from Flickr.
    6. File:Detroit, Michigan 1955 Yellow Book.jpg - Released into PD by US Government.
    7. File:I696-1988.JPG - CC-BY-3.0 by user.
    8. File:Interstate 696 pedestrian plazas Oak Park.jpg - Released into PD by MDOT via OTRS. Dough4872 00:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ontario Highway 416

    [edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Toolbox

    Ontario Highway 416 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Took this to peer review where it sat for the better part of the month... at least here it will get some constructive feedback. I don't believe this is ready for that promotion yet, but it is a great candidate for a future FA and so I'd like to get some input on what could make it a better article.
    Nominated by: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 04:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. In the infobox, change the dashes to "in"
    2. The sentence "Highway 416 "South" was the twinning of 57 km (35 mi) of Highway 16 New, a two-lane expressway that was constructed throughout the 1970s and finished in 1983, and a new interchange with Highway 401 to serve Toronto-bound traffic and vice versa." sounds awkward.
    3. In the sentence "The freeway is surrounded by thick forests and encounters almost no signs of human habitation for the following 10 km (6.2 mi).", I don't think "and encounters almost no signs of human habitation" is really needed.
    4. "it escapes the forest and enters farmland.", try to use a better word than "escapes".
    5. The sentence "The route travels to the east of the community, access to which is provided by an exit at County Road 21, crosses a swamp and is crossed by the Prescott Highway again" sounds awkward.
    6. The sentence "It crosses the old Bytown and Prescott Railway,[5] then curves to the northwest, providing an exit to River Road before crossing the Rideau River and entering the Ottawa region." needs to be reworded.
    7. "provides an interchange", use another word instead of "provides".
    8. The sentence "The route provides an interchange with Dilworth Road, then 2 km (1.2 mi) later with Roger Stevens Drive, the latter providing access to North Gower." sounds awkward.
    9. "An interchange is encountered shortly thereafter", try rewording.
    10. "The Stony Swamp lies west of the route,[7] while farmland lies to the east", don't think a comma is needed here.
    11. The sentence "To overcome the issue of abutting properties established along the Highway 16 corridor, the DHO began purchasing a new right-of-way between Highway 401 and Century Road by late 1967, and constructed a two lane bypass of the original alignment, avoiding all the built up areas that the original Highway 16 encountered." is very choppy and long. Maybe split it.
    12. Citation needed for "The new highway ended at Dilworth Road (Regional Road 13)."
    13. The paragraph "With the completion of Highway 16 New, the MTO needed only to construct interchanges and the southbound lanes in order to create a full freeway corridor. The upgrade to Highway 416 took place between 1989 and 1999 and was carried out through two separate projects: Highway 416 North was a 21 km (13 mi) freeway on a new alignment through Ottawa and an interchange at Highway 417, and Highway 416 South was the twinning of 57 km (35 mi) of Highway 16 New and an interchange at Highway 401." needs a citation. Dough4872 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the status of making these changes? --Rschen7754 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't had the opportunity yet with all the KML stuff the last week. I'll post here once I've made them (hopefully within the next week). I'm sure there's a lot more issues besides just these as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping again. --Rschen7754 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed issues 1 through 11. I will have a citation for number 12 shortly. Number 13 is merely a summary of the proceeding paragraph (which examines that twinning in detail), but I can source it if you really feel it's needed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, 12 and 13 have refs now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Fredddie
    Infobox
    1. The locations of the major intersections in the infobox don't match up with the exit list. ✓
    2. Maybe include Highway 16 in the infobox? ✓
    Lede
    1. "The 76.4 km (47.5 mi) freeway" should be "The 76.4-km-long (47.5 mi) freeway".
    2. "via 60 km (37 mi) of Highway 401" I don't think the length itself is important here. You could just say "via Highway 401". ✓
    3. "Highway 16 (known as the Prescott Highway, now Prince of Wales Drive)" is confusing. It reads like Highway 16 is now Prince of Wales Drive when you mean the old routing is Prince of Wales Drive. ✓
    RD
    1. Again with 76.4-km-long.
    2. Is the Highway 417 name more important than the TCH? If the TCH is more important, I'd say "connecting Highway 401 with the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 417)." ✓
    3. "all situated near the route." Maybe "all are situated near the route."? ✓
    4. Run-on alert! ✓
      • Replace "The freeway begins at an interchange with Highway 401, branching to the north near the community of Johnstown, and this interchange only provides access to and from the west, but immediately north of it a second interchange with the remaining section of Highway 16 provides access from Johnstown and both directions of Highway 401."
      • With "The freeway begins at an interchange with Highway 401, branching to the north near the community of Johnstown. This interchange only provides access to and from the west, but immediately north of it, a second interchange with the remaining section of Highway 16 provides access from Johnstown and to both directions of Highway 401."
    5. 68-metre-wide, forested median
    6. Following 10 km → Next 10 km? ✓
    7. The Prescott Highway should be surrounded by commas or parentheses here, but not dashes ✓
    8. The part that talks about the Prescott Highway crossing for the second and third times should be reworded such that it doesn't read like the Prescott Highway is the real subject of the sentences.
    9. Instead of saying "former Highway 43", you should say what its current name is and then add the caveat that it's old Hwy 43. ✓
    10. Instead of "a public park", you should call it by its name and then remove the redundancy at the end of the sentence. ✓
    11. "Farmland" is used too many times.
    12. You use the verb jogs twice in quick succession; one should change. ✓
    13. 59-metre-long span
    Design features
    1. Who mentioned Hwy 416 would be tolled?
    2. There is an odd jump between evaluating inefficiencies and listing what they came up with.
    3. Where are some of the pre-tensioned concrete bridges located?
    History
    1. "Geologically subdued" just strikes me as an odd way to say "flatter". ✓
    2. Maybe I missed it, but when Hwy 16 New was finished, was Hwy 16 moved onto the new alignment or was it designated 416 from the beginning? ✓
    Change of plans
    1. "This contract was complete in 1993, after which budgetary restraints prevented the awarding of further contracts." Was completed? The sentence has a slightly different meaning with "completed" than it does with "complete", so I'm asking. ✓
    2. We may want to consult the MoS, but I don't think "C$7 million" is correct. ✓
    Twinning
    1. It was a large crash, yes, but is it worth mentioning in the article? ✓

    That should do it for me. Keep in mind that some of my comments are conversation starters and not must-fixes. Overall, nice work. –Fredddie™ 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping to see if the concerns will be addressed soon. --Rschen7754 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As with most of my to do list, this may have to await my exams. I haven't had a lot of time to edit this past week and it may continue to be that way for the next few weeks. However, I've read through all of these and I'll be getting back here as soon as I can. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, just checking to make sure you didn't forget. I'm in the same boat too. --Rschen7754 22:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alrighty, I'm starting to go through these. I mentioned the Trans-Canada Highway in the lead first, but I think otherwise it should be referred to as Highway 417 (it'd be like saying it serves as an important trade corridor to the Interstate system as opposed to I-81 specifically).
    "all situated near the route." Maybe "all are situated near the route."?
    • That would read very oddly... but "all of which are adjacent to the route." (adjacent to or situated near) works.
    • For number 9, the current name is hardly used by locals: "Leeds and Grenville County Road 43". I try to avoid naming them as such (except in the RJL) since they're so awkward and long in prose.
    • The whole design features section is in need of some expansion beyond a list. I'll try to get to this in the next week, but thank you for the ideas on how to actually go about that.
    • Geologically subdued means flatter, less rocky, less obstacle-filled... less hindering. Highway 15 goes through the Canadian Shield, so it would have been much more expensive and difficult to build. Definitely a technical term, but a lot less wordy than alternatives methinks.
    • Most official sources I've found refer to it as Highway 16 New (sometimes 16N)... But I've seen plenty of instances of it being referred to as Highway 416 from the 1970s. However, that number didn't officially appear on maps/signs until the mid to late 1990s.
    • Completed is probably correct
    • C$xxx is the correct method, unless it's changed since the Don Valley Parkway made FA.
    • Given that massive pileups are fairly rare on major freeways, I believe they're pretty noteworthy, but YMMV. The only other instances that I've mentioned are the Carnage Alley pileup on ON401 and the flash snowsquall last year on ON402.

    I still have to cleanup the "farmland"s and get into the Design features, but otherwise I've made several changes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How's the review coming? --Rschen7754 06:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I have been waiting for a follow up from Floydian's comment that he still had some clean some stuff up. But I'm guessing that since I have a talkback on my talk page, I'm not going to get one. :) –Fredddie™ 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The farmlands I'll take out in the next edit to the article, the design features I've yet to do... All the other stuff you brought up I've made an adjustment and/or responded to. If you guys feel its taking too long or you don't want idle reviews left up, I have no problem with closing this for now until I've made the Design Features section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, I see no reason to rush. –Fredddie™ 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you plan to work on it within the next 1-2 months, it's not a problem; just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten. --Rschen7754 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have checked off the points with which I am satisfied. –Fredddie™ 00:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to heed off the upcoming question, I should be able to knock off the rest this weekend. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, all the non-Design Features points should be taken care of now. Still working away though... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know we've all been busy, but checking to see how things are going... --Rschen7754 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just filled in and ref'd the design features section. That should address or bring up new concerns for Freddie, and otherwise other reviewers are what is needed at this point (finally!) - Floydian τ ¢ 04:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation nitpicks: Citation 26 has Ottawa marked in it. Either a) we should use locations in all of them (something I do normally) or b) remove Ottawa from Citation 26 for consistency. The use of "Ministry of Transportation, Ontario" and "Government of Ontario" is a bit unbalanced. Citations 9-11 all use the MTO as a publisher, while Citations 1, 2, 5, 7 and so on use MTO as author and GoO for publisher. I prefer the former to be honest, but I'll leave it up to you. Also, is there no links to the Environmental Review Tribunal (or agency) in Citation 8? Not sure I get what it is. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 11:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've removed the location since I'm not sure of them in most cases and I don't want to introduce more inconsistency. As for the the MTO/GoO author-publisher issue, these are different publication situations: On one hand are press releases from the Government of Ontario which are authored by the MTO; on the other are releases from the MTO. In either case I don't know the author in any specific form, but this at least gives some of those citations both an author and a publisher. As for the last issue, the Environmental Review Tribunal is the website hosting the document at this point in time. The board could be replaced as the publisher though... - Floydian τ ¢ 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I am up for using the board as publisher for the ERT. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 10:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are these comments part of a fourth review? I was considering reviewing this article, but I do not want to step on anyone's toes.  VC  16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Article looks well constructed and worthy of A-Class status. I swapped the Veterans Memorial Highway photo with a much clearer version. I would like to see less red links but that is not really a requirement. Haljackey (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Viridiscalculus
    Infobox
    • Is it customary to include destination cities in the Major junctions rather than the city in which the junction is located?
      Normally it's the city the junction is located in, or an adjacent destination when the junction is located just outside the boundary of the place it is meant to serve. The Highway 16 junction is an example of this - it's immediately outside Johnstown and the route leads directly to Johnstown and the border crossing. As for Highway 401 (which is next to the Highway 16 junction), the alternative would be "near Prescott", a relatively minor community today. The sign at the southern end of Highway 416 reads "{401} West/Ouest Kingston".
      The closest community to the southern terminus is Johnstown, which is closer than Prescott. I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say the southern terminus of Highway 416 is "near Johnstown." I prefer that to saying "toward Kingston, Toronto" because Kingston is 100 km away. Also, I do not like the "to Canada-U.S. border" attached to Highway 16 because the border crossing that is a big deal is not there, but at I-81.  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest that sounds kind of counter-intuitive. The Highway 401 exit provides no access to Johnstown and the signs for it at the southern end of the highways say 401 Kingston. The Highway 16 exit provides access to the relatively minor community of Johnstown as well as to the minor border crossing, which I think still warrants mention here (and based on what you mentioned below in the RD section, you feel it is important to this highway in some manner). Both exits are just outside Johnstown though. Would a compromise of removing Toronto and possibly the border crossing be satisfactory? - Floydian τ ¢ 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The minor border crossing at Johnstown is important, but I do not think it is important enough to include in the infobox. Trucks traveling between Ottawa and Syracuse are not going to use that border crossing without a good reason. For the "to Kingston" issue, you have "in Ottawa" for the northern terminus. I think you should be consistent in your use of cities, and go by the standard of "where is this interchange located?" versus "where does this road lead?"  VC  12:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Normally that works fine, but with the two major intersections at the bottom both in the minor community of Johnstown, its sort of redundant (particularily so since the 401 exit provides no access to Johnstown)... However, the signs at the 417 ends basically say "417 east to Ottawa", since you're in the suburbs of Ottawa Region at that point... Nepean I believe it's called. So would a compromise of consistency work; changing "in Ottawa" to "to Ottawa"? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That compromise works for me if you take out Kanata.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]
    Lead
    • "The freeway bypasses several communities..." This is technically correct, but it could be interpreted as the freeway does not provide access to the communities.
    • Switched bypass to served, and mentioned the bypassing in the summary of the history under the bit on the new alignment built in the 60s and 70s.  Done
    • I would make clear at the start of the second paragraph that Highway 416 was built as a bypass of the original highway along the corridor, Highway 16.
    • I think this should be more clear alongside the change mentioned above this.  Done
    • I would move the commemoration information prior to the opening of the last link to make the events chronological.
    • Done  Done
    Route description
    • Much of the first paragraph is redundant with the first paragraph of the Lead. I would carve up the paragraph, consolidating details like some of the towns and the Stony Swamp with the other paragraphs of the RD and moving general themes and more important details to the Lead. The progressive (as in sequential, not Pink Floyd ;-) part of the RD is only four paragraphs, so I do not think you need an RD mini-lead.
    • Done  Done
    • I think it is important to mention the international border crossing that is accessible via Highway 16. The Exit list mentions it, so the RD should as well.
    • Agreed and done  Done
    • "are separated by an unconventional 68-metre (223 ft)-wide forested median" The word "unconventional" is subjective and not backed up by the source so it should be removed.
    • Done  Done
    • I would include interchange types when you mention each exit. For example, "provided by a partial cloverleaf interchange with County Road 21" instead of "provided by an exit at County Road 21."
    • I don't have any source for the interchange types. I find the naming of them to be much more subjective than declaring a median more than three times the standard 20 metres. To be honest, both are bad without a source, but the interchange types seems almost borderline fancruft to me.
    • The aerial source is sufficient for the interchange types. They are not controversial statements, and they are not anything approaching cruft. Was not Ontario the birthplace of the parclo? That being said, everything except at the endpoints is nothing special, so you do not need to include the specific interchange types. However, interchanges include both exits and entrances, so you should use the term "interchange" instead of "exit."  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rumour has it... though I've never been able to find any source on that nor even a date for the first one opening in Ontario. I've changed the instances of exit to interchange where applicable. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]
    • Is the stream the highway crosses just north of County Road 21 notable?
    • Will check (I'm writing these responses from the comfy confines of my internet-free cottage on Saturday and am very likely forget to check when I get home Sunday evening. Just point this out to me if I do).
    • "an exit with former Highway 43" First, the current designation of the road, County Road 43, should be used. Second, if you are going to state the route was formerly Highway 43, you need to provide a reference for that.
    • Done and done.
    • "It passes over the old Bytown and Prescott Railway" The term "passes over" is incorrect because there is no overpass. The railroad has been pulled up, so you should say something like "the line of the former [B&P RW]."
    • Good eye on ye. Fixed.  Done
    • There is no explicit reference to Highway 416 in the middle three paragraphs of the RD. I suggest replacing some of the "It"s with Highway 416, and include Highway 416 in the first sentence of each paragraph.
    • Done  Done
    • "It crosses the Rideau River and enters the Ottawa region. At the southeast corner of the River Road interchange is the Veterans Commemorative Park, dedicated in 2000 by the Royal Canadian Legion." Swap these two sentences to restore the northward progression.
    • Done  Done
    • "The median also narrows to a modest width for the remainder of the distance into Ottawa." The word "modest" is subjective and not backed by the source so it should be removed or replaced with a sourced, objective measure.  Done
    • "then 2 km (1.2 mi) later" I would remove this because it is an unnecessary detail and because the distance is wrong.
    • Done  Done
    • "the freeway is crossed by the Prescott Highway" "an interchange with the latter provides access to the Prescott Highway" Is the highway called that at the crossing or where it intersects Bankfield Road? If not, the sentences should be reworded.
    • Err... It passes beneath the highway, and can be accessed via the Bankfield interchange IIRC (I'm writing these responses from the comfy confines of my internet-free cottage on Saturday and am very likely forget to check when I get home Sunday evening. Just point this out to me if I do).
    • Actually, it looks like the old road crosses over Highway 416, so "is crossed by" is not an issue. My issue is your use of the term Prescott Highway when it appears the road is named Prince of Wales Drive in the region of Ottawa. You should check whether the name of the road you are referring to is accurate at the point in the RD progression you use it. Also, in the phrase "an interchange with the latter," the term "latter" seems to refer to Bankfield Road. However, the interchange is with one road that changes names at the interchange. If you are referring to how following Bankfield Road (instead of Brophy Drive) leads to Prescott Highway/Prince of Wales Drive, then say that.  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Prescott Highway is just the historic name for the road that was the original Highway 16. The portion within Ottawa was renamed Prince of Wales Drive sometime in the recent past, but its still the historic Prescott Highway that the article makes numerous references to throughout. I'll see what I can do to make this blurb more succinct. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "then abruptly jogs to the west" Abrupt sounds like a dangerous curve. I would replace abrupt with S-curve and try to keep the mention of the westward jog.
    • Done, although I've always been bothered by using "S-curve" in an encyclopedic way.  Done
    • "The route curves to the east" I would mention an eastward jog via an S-curve here.
    • As above  Done
    • "alongside the Stony Swamp, which acts" It is not clear whether "which" refers to the swamp or the bridge.
    • Fixed  Done
    • The Richmond Road wikilink is broken.
    • Fixed  Done
    • The Design features section seems a bit out of place. I suggest carving it up and moving bits and pieces elsewhere. The first and fourth paragraphs, which are general, can be moved to the History. The second and third paragraphs, which talk about specific locations, can be merged into the appropriate spots in the RD.
    • Have to disagree here. Compared to other freeways in Ontario, Highway 416 has its share of unique features that were integral in the funding and construction of the highway. Even the MTO highlights this with numerous conferences and webpages. I believe it would be a disservice to the reader/article to fragment this section.
    • I am going to address the Design features section, treating the comments here and in the History together, at the bottom of the review once all the other points are taken care of.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I will move onto the History a little later.  VC  01:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    • I have a housekeeping request. Can you respond to each point immediately after each point? It is much more helpful to see the point and counterpoint (or "done") together than to have to piece them together from two different lists. Please do this for the comments below, but I would really appreciate it if you also went back and did it for the comments above as well.  VC  03:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problemo. I've had editors complain about the lack of chronology when it's done the opposite way, so I never know who wants what :)
    History
    • Because most of Highway 416 is an upgrade or bypass of Highway 16, I think we need more context from Highway 16 for the History to be comprehensive.
    • What do you think would be good to throw in here? Right now the article starts with the coverage of the Super 2 bypass of the original Highway 16 alignment built in the 60s and 70s. The original alignment doesn't have too much to do with the freeway. However I can see adding a little bit about Highway 16 being the original route from Toronto to Ottawa. - Floydian τ ¢
    • Most freeways are not placed along totally new corridors; rather, they supersede existing highways, which themselves superseded lesser roads. How far back does the Highway 16 corridor go? Was it a First Nations trail? When was Highway 16 put in its first modern form as part of the route from Toronto to Ottawa? Basically, I am looking for a paragraph describing the history of the corridor.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, after trying to do this a few different ways (including a blurb before the Highway 16 New section), I think I've settled on a good way to accomplish this in a succinct way. Good to go. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it except for this sentence: "The important corridor between the Trans-provincial Highway (Highway 2) and Ottawa was known as the Prescott Highway until it was numbered in 1925." The sentence implies the Prescott Highway name was replaced instead of supplemented with a number designation.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sort of related, I just noticed the county road number designation of Prescott Highway is not mentioned in the Route description. Please mention the designations for L&G and, if relevant, Ottawa.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted. How's it look now? Ottawa numbers it roads, but that seems to have stopped ever since the Region of Ottawa-Carleton became City of Ottawa c. 2001. It's just Prince of Wales Drive now it seems (Of course, I say this having never been to Ottawa). - Floydian τ ¢ 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]
    • Instances where "two lane" and other lane description adjectives are being used need a hyphen.
    • Done. Done
    • In Super two, the S is not capitalized.
    • Fixed Done
    • The last few sentences of the Change of plans section is redundant with the first paragraph of the Design features section. I suggest merging the contents under Change of plans.
    • I summarized it a little better. Again I still feel this is a topic best covered separately from the history, as the changes are apparent in the design of the route and not just the savings on paper. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think twinning necessarily involves the construction of interchanges, just adding a second carriageway, so the second clause of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Twinning and completion should be revised to not imply it does.
    • Done. Done
    • "Highway 43" Was the road part of Highway 43 in 1996? If not, you could clarify "former Hwy 43" or "what was then Hwy 43" or "what is now X"? Also, the redirect from the link does not seem useful to the user.
    • "two flyover ramps" Clarify that these are the flyover ramps between 401 and 416.
    • Done. Done
    • The construction companies should not be linked because it is unlikely they will ever have articles.
    • Done. Done
    • I count opening dates for three sections of the highway, but there were five contracts. If multiple contracts opened the same day, can you explain that?
    • There are four dates (June 12, 1997; June 26, 1998; August 24, 1998; and September 23, 1999). I'm not sure if the final date includes the section between Oxford Station Road and Shanby Road. I have combed long and hard to find something on the opening of that section, to no avail. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]
    • The third paragraph of Twinning and completion looks odd by itself. I would combine it with the next paragraph.
    • Done.  Done
    • Why was Palladini reluctant to name the highway for veterans?
    • I made some changes. The legislative hansard source doesn't quote his reasoning (if he gave any at all), but the paper source makes the connection to the other Veterans Memorial Highway in London and the general watering down of the honours given to veterans. I agree myself... they've lost their significance at this point. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]
    • What is significant about the mass vehicle pileup? Did it cause changes in procedures or anything permanent? It looks odd in its own paragraph like that.
    • There doesn't seem to be anything that happened as a result of this. It was just a major incident. Pileups only happen once every five years or so in Ontario so they are generally big news stories. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the pileup, have there been any changes to the highway since 1999?
    Junction list
    • Is the Highway 401 west exit marked as or officially Exit 0? If not, the Exit entry should be blank or dashed.
    • Looks like the gore sign for Highway 16 is the last one (Exit 1). I think the 406 and 410 are the only freeways with an Exit 0 sign. Fixed. Done
    • The second data row does not include Highway 401 toward Cornwall or Montreal or whatever the control cities are.
    • Fixed... I think. Let me know if this setup works for you. Done
    • Rideau River spans two Notes rows. This implies the bridge over the river is 2 km long, or the user might be confused for some other reason. I suggest either removing the river information—preferred, because the river and bridge do not look like a big deal—or create a dedicated row for the bridge/river.
    • Fixed. Done
    • The Queensway redirects to Highway 417, so The Queensway should not be wikilinked.
    • Fixed.
    • There is still one instance of The Queensway linked. This is a major junction, so you should add control cities. I checked Google Streetview and several destinations are included on the signs.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links to the county or regional roads do not redirect to the proper places in the lists, but that seems to be a template issue, so I will not hold it against you.
    • I can fix it relatively easy... should it redirect to the section of the article with the table of roads?
    • Each link should redirect to a particular spot in the table of roads. For instance, L&G County Road 20 should redirect to the row in the table for that county road.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a larger issue that I think I would have to address with a AWB run through every article. The list articles do not have anchors in the individual rows at the moment and that is quite a large amount of work. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    References
    • Ref 7: Link directly to the map. The webpage looks like a self-published source.
    • Fixed  Done
    • Ref 18: Using the current satellite imagery to support your assertion that the super two ended at that spot could be construed as WP:OR. I would try to find another way to support that.
    • Added a second ref from the early 90s that shows the two alignments merging at that point  Done
    External links
    • The Google Maps reference is also the same as Ref 6.
    • Removed  Done
    Images
    • The phrase "lest we forget" is not mentioned at all in this article. I think the sign should be described in the caption of the image that shows the sign. You can also mention the sign in the background is the French language version. (I was viewing the video of the person driving Highway 416 and I was surprised to see two blue signs in a row until I remembered the bilingualism.). The caption as you have it now, talking about the other memorial highways, can be modified and linked with Palladini's reluctance to name another memorial highway in the Twinning and completion section of the history.
    • Done... let me know if this works.  Done
    • The other images and their captions seem fine, but it would be good if someone else did a formal image review before this goes to FAC.
    Wikilinking
    • I have not put together anything empirical, but the wikilinking in the prose seems to be inconsistent in its frequency. My preference is to only wikilink each topic once; however, you can do whatever you want, as long as you are consistent, such as wikilinking each term once in the article, once per major section, once per subsection, etc.
    • Generally I avoid multiple linking unless its an obscure topic that is mentioned in the lead and then not again until the bottom of the history.
    • Then I will use that standard when I do my final sweep. In the meantime, I recommend you go through and check the wikilinking scheme and wikilink things that should be wikilinked but are not, like the Rideau River.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I may have some more comments later. I plan to do a final sweep for grammar and other micro-level stuff once all the content stuff is addressed.  VC  03:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a few replies, but I'm still going. Just wanted to save this since my computer has had a bad history. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alrighty, I've responded to everything. A few need your response, but we're getting close! - Floydian τ ¢ 06:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that infobox issue is all that's left. I've tried a compromise to avoid listing the 401 interchange as being in a place that it doesn't provide access to. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded to all remaining comments. There are two or three things left to resolve that are not Design features. I will start a Design features discussion a bit later.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded to those and made fixes. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Design features

    I thought about this some more and here are my thoughts on what to do with this section:

    • I think the first paragraph belongs in the History. The paragraph is not well linked with the following three paragraphs and does not do a good job introducing them. The paragraph talks about cost-saving measures, but at least two and possibly all three of features described seem to be more expensive upgrades rather than cutting costs. Specifically, this paragraph can be inserted at the end of the second paragraph of the Change in plans section, with an additional statement that the review led to the construction of some of Highway 416's unique features.
    • Done.
    • The other three paragraphs can remain where they are in the Design features subsection. Because the paragraphs are short, you may want to make them bullet points preceded by an introductory sentence or two about design features.
    • The last two sentences of the third paragraph of the Route description proper should be integrated into the paragraph about the bridge at the Stony Swamp. Right now, the portland cement award is mentioned twice. If you are going to single out the bridge, you should concentrate the details in one spot in the article.
    • Done.
    • The leda clay paragraph is fine, but the acronym CNR should be expanded and Blast made lowercase.
    • Done.
    • The sloped cuts paragraph looks fine.

    You may also want to add more design features or unique things about the highway (the Veterans Commemorative Park comes to mind) if you can get the information and can write two or three sentences on a topic.  VC  01:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the commemorative park would really qualify as a design feature. It's just a park with a cenotaph off to the side of an offramp. I've been searching for more, but so far nothing. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you find anything else, you can add it later. For now, I will declare this issue closed. Next I will do a final sweep.  VC  00:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Final sweep
    • The search term King's Highway 416 does not redirect to this article, but it should because it is the first phrase in the article. You should also include the phrase Ontario Highway 416 bolded in the first sentence.
    • The phrase "Despite this" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Lead does not seem like the proper transition phrase. Can you either remove it or replace it with a transition phrase that does not imply "these are villages along the route despite best efforts to do or not do something"?
    • In the first sentence of the RD, should "Leeds and Grenville" be prepended or appended with "United Counties" or something similar? It seems awkward not using a generic here.
    • Done.
    • In the History, is there a reason "environmental assessment" is capitalized? It is not being used as a proper noun.
    • Does the History mention when Highway 416 North was completed? Maybe I am having a blond moment, but I see construction ground to a standstill due to budget issues after overpasses were built, there was a review, then the remainder of construction info in the article is about Highway 416 South.
    • I'm glad you caught that. I'm not sure if I added it at one point and it got deleted by some wonky edit... or if I never had it there in the first place. Regardless, the two opening dates for the northern section are now there. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a fan of the order of information toward the end of the Change in plans section after you inserted the missing information; it is needlessly non-chronological. I suggest you rearrange the information by ending the second paragraph after "construction activity on Highway 416 came to a standstill for two years" as it was before. I would move the three sentences with the completion dates and cost to the end of the third paragraph and merge the sentence that starts "it was in this period" with the third sentence of the third paragraph. This will make the information more chronological and the third paragraph will be meatier.  VC  19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did most of what you recommended, except the three sentences mentioning completion dates/cost have been moved to the very beginning of the "Twinning and completion" section. I think this makes a lot more sense in the overall structure of the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Those issues should be it. I made some copy edits that you should look at and make sure I did not do anything adverse.  VC  02:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Image review

    I think this is simple enough for me to do:

    • File:Ontario 416.svg - PD as simple, seems fine
    • File:Ontario 416 map.svg - CC by SA 3.0 - please include GIS sources
    • File:416 into Ottawa.png - PD by nom
    • File:Highway 416- The Veterans Memorial Highway.jpg - CC by SA 2.0 - flickr
    • File:Hwy 416 Ottawa 2.JPG - CC by SA 3.0 by creator

    Only GIS sources need to be added. No OTRS. --Rschen7754 09:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    California State Route 56

    [edit]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Toolbox

    California State Route 56 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: This article just passed at GA, and is complete; I think it could be a FA.
    Nominated by: Rschen7754 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

    Promoted!  VC  03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dough4872

    I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:

    1. Some of the attractions in the route description do not seem notable enough for mentioning, such as the San Diego Jewish Academy and Westview High School.
      Really? --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "Planning for SR 56 was reportedly started in 1956", the use of "reportedly" sounds awkward here.
      Reportedly because it's based off the recollections of one person interviewed for the newspaper article. --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "The routing ran from LRN 2, which later became US 101," wasn't LRN 2 already US 101 at this time?
      Signed, maybe; legally, no. --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. There should be an appropriate conversion for " 69 acres".
       Done --Rschen7754 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "require them to move the western terminus of SR 56, possibly moving it closer to Sorrento Valley", use the verb "move" twice here.
       Done --Rschen7754 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. The sentence " However, the ramps connecting SR 56 to I-5 were opened between 1997 and 1998; traffic was diverted onto Carmel Valley Road." seems to be missing some words.
      Any ones in particular? --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can rephrase the sentence to "However, the ramps connecting SR 56 to I-5 were not opened until between 1997 and 1998; traffic was diverted onto Carmel Valley Road until they were finished." to make it sound more complete. Dough4872 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. "Highway 680", is that what the county route was officially referred to as and not CR 680? Dough4872 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the sources I have, yes. cahighways.org calls it Select Arterial 680, though. --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Fredddie
    Infobox and lead
    1. In the map's caption, you should mention what the dotted line that connects to SR 67 is.
       Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. No wikilink to Carmel Valley, San Diego?
       Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The first mention of I-15 could be shortened.
       Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "It is also called the Ted Williams Freeway, named after baseball player Ted Williams, who was born in San Diego." I'd probably say "It is also called the Ted Williams Freeway, named after the San Diego-born baseball player." I'm not sure the link to the baseball article is useful.
       Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Route description
    1. Picture shows a BGS that says "El Camino Real" but the caption says "Carmel Creek Road". Is that right?
      Yes, it's looking off the Carmel Creek Road bridge. --Rschen7754 07:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "Northbound SR 56 begins as a ramp from the I-5 northbound local bypass lanes."
      1. Northbound SR 56?
      2. "from northbound I-5's local bypass lanes."
       Done --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Move ___bound to before the road's name.
       Done --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Continuing eastbound, → Continuing east,
       Done --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Similar diamond interchange to what?
      To the previous interchange. --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Are "Rancho Penasquitos" and "Rancho Peñasquitos" interchangeable?
      You tend to see both, because some people can't or won't use the tilde, since this is in a primarily English-speaking country. --Rschen7754 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. No newer AADT statistics?
       Done --Rschen7754 07:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History
    1. Reportedly started? Nothing concrete?
      See comment to Dough4872. --Rschen7754 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "On December 30, 1980, the city of Poway included SR 56 extending all the way east through the city to a northern extension of SR 125.[10]" What do you mean by 'included'?
      That's what happens when you write out of order, and never come back to the original part. :/ --Rschen7754 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Capitalization of Least Bell's Vireo
       Done Rschen7754 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. As a corporate entity, it's "City of San Diego", not "city of San Diego"
      Got all the ones I saw. --Rschen7754 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Have you considered inflating the figures to today's dollars?
       Done --Rschen7754 08:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Why was McNamara charged for the signs?
      Source wasn't really clear on that. --Rschen7754 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. What was Proposition A?
       Done --Rschen7754 08:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Exit list

    This was a fairly quick run for me. I might make another pass later in the week. –Fredddie™ 04:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All done. --Rschen7754 08:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Dave

    Note:Partial review, I will remove this note when finished:

    Lead

    The statement "as the only east–west freeway in between SR 78 and SR 52" is clunky. The intent of this clause it to explain why the words "important connector" are merited in describing the highway. The problem is, it only works for those know where these 2 state routes run. At a minimum they should be linked, but I'd prefer to re-write this so say something like. "as the next east-west artery is SR-XXX, X miles away".

    I've added locations; the danger is that SR 78 does not run due east-west, and is a different mileage away on I-5 versus I-15. --Rschen7754 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's better. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Route description

    "SR 56 is not part of the National Highway System (NHS)" Why is it important to know this?

    I've seen a lot of GA/FAs indicate whether they are part of it or not. Open to input on this from anyone though. --Rschen7754 22:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To me is seems like fancruft to list what a highway is not. However, I've been out of the loop lately (trying to get back into it) and I'll take your word for it that this has passed the scrutiny of FAC. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History

    "Following the Sierra Club's settlement, the City of Del Mar had a dispute with them" is clunky. Presumably "them" refers to Sierra Club, but there are a lot of organizations listed in this section and it isn't 100% clear who them is. Maybe, "The City of Del Mar had a post settlement dispute with the Sierra Club over..." and then massaging the sentence that follows.

    Copyedited, better now? --Rschen7754 01:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that works Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Ted Williams paragraph doesn't flow well with the rest of this section. IMO the best solution would be to expand this enough to split into two paragraphs and make it its own L3 heading, "Naming the freeway" or similar. Then move this new section to the bottom of the History section. However, its possible a less invasive solution is out there.

    Made a copyedit to the first sentence - is this smoother? --Rschen7754 01:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think it's out of place. I won't stop the nomination over it though. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree that it's a bit of a jump, but I'm not exactly sure where it would be better. --Rschen7754 05:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    California Coastal Commission should be linked on first use in the article.

    Done. --Rschen7754 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    more later Dave (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All done. --Rschen7754 01:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History part 2

    Caltrans should be wikilinked on first mention in prose (it is wikilinked in the infobox, but not in prose) FYI, An article exists for San Diego City Council, but I've got mixed feelings if that needs to be wikilinked or not.

    Both done. --Rschen7754 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In history an unlinked term "Bolsa Chica" is used. There are a handful of wikipedia articles on places named Bolsa Chica. I'm guessing the one this refers to is Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. In any case, I'd advise to find out which one (if any) applies and link as appropriate.

    A Wikipedia search didn't come up with the right one. :( --Rschen7754 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fail. Yeah, that is the right one. --Rschen7754 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should explain the phrase "dual freeway". I think of a setup of separate collector and distributor lanes when I read that, but I'm a roadgeek. Not sure what non-roadgeeks would think of.

    Added a bit. --Rschen7754 09:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    exit list

    Is I-5 known as the "San Diego Freeway" within San Diego County? I know it is south of El Toro Y in the LA Metro area, but this surprises me that it is known as this in San Diego.

    It's actually Montgomery. I think we both know who we can blame for that. :( --Rschen7754 06:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The exit list seems to contradict the infobox. The exit list states the entire route is in the city of San Diego in San Diego County. However the infobox lists cities other than San Diego. I'm aware they don't actually contradict each other as these are neighborhoods of San Diego. Do you know if there is precedent for using neighborhoods, rather than city names, in the infobox?

    I don't know that there is a standard. I'll add San Diego to both to prevent confusion. --Rschen7754 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    sourcing

    Sources 8,9 ans 44 are linked to URL's with static IP's. I'm not aware of a policy issue against that, but it seems risky to do so. Do you know if this IP is known to be stable?

    It has been for a while... unfortunately, that's how the archives are set up... that's California for you. :/ --Rschen7754 06:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    overall

    The lead and the infobox map caption each have one sentence mentions of an unconstructed portion. However, this topic is not really expanded in the body of the article. There are 2 sentences about it in the section titled "Planning and initial construction". I'd like to see more, similar to what I did in California State Route 14. IMO if something merits a mention in the lead it should merit at least a paragraph in the body. However, I'll admit I'm hypocritical in stating that in my own work.

    I've added a sentence and shifted stuff around. Unfortunately, my sources were silent on this one. I've seen a SPS claim that the city shot it down, but I'm not sure if they have it confused with Select Arterial 680, another related road. --Rschen7754 08:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All done, and thanks! --Rschen7754 09:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues resolved to my satisfaction. So I will Support. The one thing I'd like to see is, while you did address my concern about the unreconstructed portion, I'd like to see what geography lies between the planned verses constructed terminus of the highway? (i.e. is there some mountain or other geologic obstacle that makes construction difficult, or is it as flat as Kansas and as such no obvious reason for the cancellation?) Dave (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was more of the city of Poway not wanting it. --Rschen7754 02:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Imzadi1979

    I made some tweaks to the lead (bolding the abbreviation, etc), and I have additional comments for the other sections of the article.

    RD
    • This section looks good, except the last paragraph. Since the NHS isn't mentioned again at all, the abbreviation can be dropped.
    • As for the last sentence, "On average... an average..." is a little repetitious. Also, does the source specify that this is the average for a weekday, versus weekend traffic levels, or just the theoretical average day of AADT?
    Planning and construction
    • Saying that the planning "reportedly" started in a certain year expresses a certain amount of doubt that it did. I'd drop the adverb if you have confidence that the source is right.
    • You have a subject-verb error in one sentence further down. The road can't start construction. Instead of "The predecessor of SR 56 began construction..." I would think it should sound better as "Construction for the predecessor to SR 56 began on...". I would then use a semicolon and drop the "with" since that word is a preposition and not a conjunction.
    • I had to double check, but California has District Courts of Appeal, not of Appeals. (I was looking because on the federal level, the Courts of Appeals are organized by Circuits, not Districts.)
    • "However, the ramps connecting..." sounds wrong. That word is great for introducing a concept that is in opposition or juxtaposition to something else (like "but"), but in this case, I think "Later" would work better.
    • The whole paragraph about Ted Wlliams and Pete Wilson can omit their first names after the first mention. However, I would look up the first names of the councilwoman and councilman since they're missing.
      • I'd rewrite the on sentence as: "However, the Council voted 7–1 to name it after Williams on May 12, 1992." The "of naming" is one of those "preposition + -ing" constructions that makes Tony1 cry. (The vote needs a dash instead of a hyphen as well.)
      • Since this is past history now, I would change the tense on the "It is alleged..." to "It was alleged..." and change the "...proposed the named of the freeway after Pete Wilson for... " to "...nominated Wilson for the honor as...".
    • Further down, there is a "however" that isn't needed when discussing Kevin McNamara. Nothing seems to pull together why that's counterintuitive or unexpected.
    Filling the gap
    • "... however, Caltrans was required to install a drainage system, since the route traverse wetlands similar to those in a project in Bolsa Chica that was the subject of a court verdict" is kinda wordy to be tacked on to another sentence. I'd make that its own sentence and reword it up a bit along the lines of "Caltrans was required to install a drainage system because of wetlands; this was similar to a court verdict for a project in Bolsa Chica.
    • "for the construction of the interchange at ... began on the interchange..." is a perfect place to us an "it".
    • "...the City Council allocated ... to purchase land..." would be better than "for purchasing" to avoid tears from down under. (See above for the reference.)
    Ramps and bypasses

    On June 13, 2012, Caltrans held a public forum to discuss five proposals to address the issue with the missing ramps at the western terminus:

    • build the westbound-to-northbound ramp and the southbound-to-eastbound ramp,
    • add additional lanes to both SR 56 and I-5,
    • build only the westbound-to-northbound ramp and add lanes to southbound I-5 and eastbound SR 56,
    • build the westbound-to-northbound ramp and add lanes to SR 56 only, or
    • build nothing at all.[73]
  • The X-to-Y constructions do need to be hyphenated though.
    • Exit list
    References
    Images

    Overall, very minor stuff, and an article I'd be happy to support once tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All issues addressed, and thanks for the review. --Rschen7754 07:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    M-1 (Michigan highway)

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    M-1 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Michigan's Main Street, The Father Road, the first urban National Scenic Byway and only All-American Road in Michigan, its history as a roadway originates in the Detroit Fire of 1805, but it dates back to pre-colonization days. Woodward Avenue is the number one road in Michigan in a number of categories.
    Please note that I am awaiting a replacement photograph from DanTheMan474 (talk · contribs) for the "Oakland County" section of the RD, and I'm working to secure permission to use an image related to the propose light rail line.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. In the infobox you have "Adams Avenue in Detroit" but "I-94 at Detroit", can this be made consistent?
    2. The infobox lists the establishment date for M-1, but I think it would help to also mention when Woodward Avenue was built. Perhaps use the history parameter to mention when it was built and when it received the M-1 designation.
    3. Is East Side and West Side of Detroit formal terms that are capitalized?
    4. The sentence "The street runs north-northwesterly away from the river through the heart of downtown Detroit and the Financial District, passing several important and historic sites, including notable buildings and The Spirit of Detroit, a statue used to symbolize the city. " is long and needs to be split.
    5. In the first paragraph of the Detroit and Highland Park section of the Route description, you begin two consecutive sentences with "Further north". Can one of these instances be changed?
    6. You use "passes" a lot in the Route description. Can you vary the wording a bit?
    7. The sentence "North of I-94, Woodward passes through New Center, near Cadillac Place, the former headquarters of General Motors." reads very choppy and should be reworded.
    8. "the two boulevards cross in a large interchange instead of an intersection.", the "instead of an intersection" part seems superfluous and should be removed.
    9. Is there a source to verify Maple Road takes the place of 15 Mile Road?
    10. "The event evokes nostalgia of the 1950s and '60s", I would make the date formatting consistent here, preferably changing the latter to "1960s".
    11. "The last streetcar tracks were removed from Woodward Avenue in 1956." Perhaps more can be said about the streetcars that ran along Woodward Avenue? When were they establsihed? What company ran them? What were they like? How did it play a role in the transportation of Detroit?
    12. I still have a reservation with the naming of the article. At GAN, I mentioned that Woodward Avenue may be a better title for the article as it focuses on Woodward Avenue as a important Detroit street while briefly mentioning that it carries the M-1 designation. From what it appears, Woodward Avenue is probably more well-known as a name than the M-1 designation. While a Google search may have shown more results for M-1 than Woodward Avenue, keep in mind that mirror sites may have pushed up the results for M-1. I think this ACR may be a good time to get opinion from other reviewers on the name and to possibly push for a Requested move should it be desired to change the article name. Dough4872 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies
    1. Done
    2. Done
    3. Yes, they are.
    4. Done.
    5. Done.
    6. Done.
    7. Done.
    8. Removed.
    9. Added.
    10. Changed, I disagree, but it's not worth a debate.
    11. Added.
    12. I'm quite ambivalent about this, as part of what you propose involves some radical restructuring to the article. Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My main points have been addressed. However, I still think renaming the article to Woodward Avenue is a good idea, even if it involves a slight restructuring. But I will leave that for others to discuss. Dough4872 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query would the reviewers please look over a recent change? I added a bit of information to the history section, and in the process pulled all of the streetcar stuff together with the added material on the failed subway into a third subsection. So that the last street car running had some context, I added some information on the decline of the system. There's probably room to condense things a bit, but I think the reviewers should give this a quick look in any event. Imzadi 1979 → 09:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with Dough and Fredddie in that the title should be Woodward Avenue. Every section is about Woodward Avenue as a whole except for the Major intersections. In fact, the only mention of M-1 in the Cultural significance could be easily replaced with Woodward Avenue.--TCN7JM 07:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the third fourth reviewer, it looks like everything major has been checked already. Michael's got this ACR thing down to a science, in any case, so I wouldn't expect anything to be out of line. Before I can support, though, I have to ask—is "the MDOT" (first para of RD) correct usage? I understand it may be different in Michigan, but in Oklahoma, we always refer to ODOT without the definite article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive

    [edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Toolbox

    Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Unlike other recent nominations, I don't intend for this to head to FAC for a while. It's an interesting drive to take, and I think it's worthy of polishing up to the A-Class level. As for FAC, I have bigger fish for now.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 03:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dough4872

    I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

    1. Is it possible for major points of interest and termini to be listed in the infobox?
    2. Are there any traffic counts from more recently than 2008?
    3. "The road was originally known as the Sleeping Bear Dunes Park when he first opened it to the public in 1967.", is there a title that goes after "Sleeping Bear Dunes Park" such as road?
    4. why is "4.11 m" in brackets and not parentheses? Dough4872 21:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Will do.
    2. Not from any press sources. The NPS doesn't log traffic counts on this road like MDOT does with its state highways.
    3. Nope, that is the full, complete and total name, "Sleeping Bear Dunes Park".
    4. The conversion is an addition to the quote, and like any added content in a quotation, it's in brackets. Imzadi 1979 → 02:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Image check by Fredddie
    Review by TCN7JM

    Comments from TCN7JM

    1. Multiple occurrences of punctuation marks outside quotation marks in the lead, RD, and History need to be fixed.
      • See WP:LQ, but we don't use the "American" method of sliding all punctuation into the quotation unless it was present in the quotation.
    2. RD: Correct me if I'm wrong, but "some 9.0 miles" would look better as "some 9 miles."
    3. History: "and the road became part of park itself" → "and the road became part of the park itself."
      • Added.

    --TCN7JM 02:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied above. Imzadi 1979 → 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/2012&oldid=523604262"